Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Faustpanzer wrote:
A possible Way to resolve this is to use Emergency Disembarkation, which is not the same as Disembarkation. It can be used when a Unit cannot be set up within 3" of a Transport.

Unnecessary. The rules clearly tell you when to use Emergency Disembarkation, and it has nothing to do with whether or not a Transport was destroyed immediately after Advancing. This whole 'argument' is predicated entirely on someone thinking they found a 'Gotcha!' in the rules that really doesn't exist.

The rules also say you cannot Disembark from a transport that has made an Advance or Fall Back move this turn.
Since it doesn't say what happens, the point that the game kinda just grinds to a halt (if played purely RAW) is a valid one. Doesn't change the RAW, just means the RAW is broken, which is not a huge surprise given GW's track record.

But I really dislike the attitude of saying that if someone disagrees with you, they're trying to pull a fast one. Emergency Disembarkation makes sense, from a lore point of view-not only has your transport been destroyed, it was destroyed while barreling forward at max speed. That's gonna hurt a lot more than getting tossed from a stationary tank.

This is not about disagreeing with someone; I agree that the RAW wording itself is broken. But anyone trying to claim that the unit inside just dies is, in my view, a TFG-type. I also object to the idea of using Emergency Disembarkation as a 'compromise', because I don't believe the situation requires a compromise - it requires a modicum of common sense (and, of course, an FAQ from GW).

GW even tells us that, in the event of a conflict the RAW can't solve, we should talk it out to a common-sense conclusion.

So, in your opinion, Emergency Disembarkation (used when a unit cannot disembark normally) isn't a good fit for a situation like this, where a unit cannot normally Disembark?

I could say you're just looking to minimize damage to your army instead of facing reasonable consequences. I highly doubt that's the case-but you seem pretty deadset on labeling me as trying to gain some advantage. Which is kinda laughable, given that my usual army can't kill a Rhino from full on Overwatch, even if I roll absolutely perfectly.

Emergency Disembark sounds like a good Common Sense Compromise to me.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Faustpanzer wrote:
A possible Way to resolve this is to use Emergency Disembarkation, which is not the same as Disembarkation. It can be used when a Unit cannot be set up within 3" of a Transport.

Unnecessary. The rules clearly tell you when to use Emergency Disembarkation, and it has nothing to do with whether or not a Transport was destroyed immediately after Advancing. This whole 'argument' is predicated entirely on someone thinking they found a 'Gotcha!' in the rules that really doesn't exist.

The rules also say you cannot Disembark from a transport that has made an Advance or Fall Back move this turn.
Since it doesn't say what happens, the point that the game kinda just grinds to a halt (if played purely RAW) is a valid one. Doesn't change the RAW, just means the RAW is broken, which is not a huge surprise given GW's track record.

But I really dislike the attitude of saying that if someone disagrees with you, they're trying to pull a fast one. Emergency Disembarkation makes sense, from a lore point of view-not only has your transport been destroyed, it was destroyed while barreling forward at max speed. That's gonna hurt a lot more than getting tossed from a stationary tank.

This is not about disagreeing with someone; I agree that the RAW wording itself is broken. But anyone trying to claim that the unit inside just dies is, in my view, a TFG-type. I also object to the idea of using Emergency Disembarkation as a 'compromise', because I don't believe the situation requires a compromise - it requires a modicum of common sense (and, of course, an FAQ from GW).

GW even tells us that, in the event of a conflict the RAW can't solve, we should talk it out to a common-sense conclusion.

So, in your opinion, Emergency Disembarkation (used when a unit cannot disembark normally) isn't a good fit for a situation like this, where a unit cannot normally Disembark?

I could say you're just looking to minimize damage to your army instead of facing reasonable consequences. I highly doubt that's the case-but you seem pretty deadset on labeling me as trying to gain some advantage. Which is kinda laughable, given that my usual army can't kill a Rhino from full on Overwatch, even if I roll absolutely perfectly.

If it feels I'm going after you, personally, I apologize - that is absolutely not the case and not my intent. But I do get a little... frustrated... at those who try to dig up these types of 'gotcha' moves.

The reason I object to Emergency Disembarkation as a compromise is because the rules call to use it in the event that 3" isn't enough space to disembark from a destroyed transport. It's called for in a specific instance. While I can see why some people would find it an acceptable compromise, I find it a case of going outside even the intent.

Also, I try to look at rules conversations from as neutral a point as possible, regardless of how it may benefit or hurt my armies (of which I play several and use transports to varying degrees, from "everyone's in a Raider" to "we don't even have transports").

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
But anyone trying to claim that the unit inside just dies is, in my view, a TFG-type..

For what it's worth, this is how it was resolved in some previous editions when a unit was required to disembark but couldn't. So assuming that it's just 'TFG' behaviour is a little unfair, IMO.

 insaniak wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
But anyone trying to claim that the unit inside just dies is, in my view, a TFG-type..

For what it's worth, this is how it was resolved in some previous editions when a unit was required to disembark but couldn't. So assuming that it's just 'TFG' behaviour is a little unfair, IMO.

Interesting. I too heard this story and my first thought was that it was a TFG moment. Knowing this it could go either way I supposed, one of those you had to be there moments.

 insaniak wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
But anyone trying to claim that the unit inside just dies is, in my view, a TFG-type..

For what it's worth, this is how it was resolved in some previous editions when a unit was required to disembark but couldn't. So assuming that it's just 'TFG' behaviour is a little unfair, IMO.

I was unaware of this, as I didn't play much before 8th edition. So, mea culpa on that one.

 JNAProductions wrote:


So, in your opinion, Emergency Disembarkation (used when a unit cannot disembark normally) isn't a good fit for a situation like this, where a unit cannot normally Disembark?

The trouble with using this interpretation is that you're using another rule in a way it wasn't intended to fix an oversight. Since Emergency Disembarkation specifies that it is only for use if the models can't be placed within 3" of the transport, you're now adding another use of non RAW to the situation.

Let's say that you come to that compromise though. Well RAW, you can now set up this unit up to 6" away from the transport instead of the normal 3" since that's how Emergency Disembarkation works, and now an argument starts over that because that extra distance could make a difference. Should you only do 3" since there is space to set up the unit in that range, that's how you'd normally disembark if it was possible to do so, which it is. But then that's not RAW for Emergency Disembarkation and you've created another mess.

Personally, I like the idea of units inside being tossed from the speeding transport 6" and taking some extra damage, but using that as a way to try to adhere closer to RAW causes more problems than it solves.

RAW is already broken. If you’re not dealing with TFG, then should be able to compromise on the distance involved.
I don’t mind if you get the extra 3” over a normal disembarkation. That’s part and parcel of the rule I suggested using for this.

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW is already broken. If you’re not dealing with TFG, then should be able to compromise on the distance involved.
I don’t mind if you get the extra 3” over a normal disembarkation. That’s part and parcel of the rule I suggested using for this.

RAW is not broken. The rule about "must immediately disembark" is in response to a certain situation and takes precedence in this case, since that rule is more specific than the one about advancing and disembarking.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Faustpanzer wrote:
A possible Way to resolve this is to use Emergency Disembarkation, which is not the same as Disembarkation. It can be used when a Unit cannot be set up within 3" of a Transport.

Unnecessary. The rules clearly tell you when to use Emergency Disembarkation, and it has nothing to do with whether or not a Transport was destroyed immediately after Advancing. This whole 'argument' is predicated entirely on someone thinking they found a 'Gotcha!' in the rules that really doesn't exist.

The rules also say you cannot Disembark from a transport that has made an Advance or Fall Back move this turn.
Since it doesn't say what happens, the point that the game kinda just grinds to a halt (if played purely RAW) is a valid one. Doesn't change the RAW, just means the RAW is broken, which is not a huge surprise given GW's track record.

But I really dislike the attitude of saying that if someone disagrees with you, they're trying to pull a fast one. Emergency Disembarkation makes sense, from a lore point of view-not only has your transport been destroyed, it was destroyed while barreling forward at max speed. That's gonna hurt a lot more than getting tossed from a stationary tank.

This is not about disagreeing with someone; I agree that the RAW wording itself is broken. But anyone trying to claim that the unit inside just dies is, in my view, a TFG-type. I also object to the idea of using Emergency Disembarkation as a 'compromise', because I don't believe the situation requires a compromise - it requires a modicum of common sense (and, of course, an FAQ from GW).

GW even tells us that, in the event of a conflict the RAW can't solve, we should talk it out to a common-sense conclusion.

So, in your opinion, Emergency Disembarkation (used when a unit cannot disembark normally) isn't a good fit for a situation like this, where a unit cannot normally Disembark?

I could say you're just looking to minimize damage to your army instead of facing reasonable consequences. I highly doubt that's the case-but you seem pretty deadset on labeling me as trying to gain some advantage. Which is kinda laughable, given that my usual army can't kill a Rhino from full on Overwatch, even if I roll absolutely perfectly.

Using emergency disembarkation fits really well from a narrative point of view, but unfortunately is the one that is broken from a RAW sense. ED is only applied to "disembarking units" (which you are arguing that you cannot do), and is performed "as described for disembarking from a destroyed transport model" (which you are arguing that you cannot do).

On top of the already mentioned Specific permission > General restriction (which too much of the game hinges on to dismiss), there is another RAW way in which disembarking from a destroyed transport that advanced is fine, which involves out of phase rules (covered in the rules commentary):
1. Overwatch is unarguably an out of phase rule (as it is called out in the commentary)
2. Disembarking from a destroyed transport also seems to qualify as it allows you to disembark at any time and not just in your movement phase

Out of phase rules specifically instruct you to ignore rules that would trigger in that phase from the out of sequence action (I wouldn't normally be able to disembark at this point, but I have to - because of your overwatch interrupting the sequence of my turn, so I ignore the other triggers regardless of which phase I am in). For a further example, if the transport had advance+charge capability it could die to overwatch in the charge phase, would you still try to enforce the no disembark rule?

Not being able to disembark from a transport that advanced or fell back is NOT a phase rule. It’s for the whole turn.

And yes, Emergency Disembarkation is not RAW. In this case, RAW just glitches and the game breaks. It’s why I specifically stated that it’s how I would play it-not because it’s what the rules state, but because it feels to me a good way to model it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not being able to disembark from a transport that advanced or fell back is NOT a phase rule. It’s for the whole turn.

And yes, Emergency Disembarkation is not RAW. In this case, RAW just glitches and the game breaks. It’s why I specifically stated that it’s how I would play it-not because it’s what the rules state, but because it feels to me a good way to model it.

It does not glitch or break, the rule about "must immediately disembark" is in response to a certain situation and takes precedence in this case, since that rule is more specific than the one about advancing and disembarking.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not being able to disembark from a transport that advanced or fell back is NOT a phase rule. It’s for the whole turn.

And yes, Emergency Disembarkation is not RAW. In this case, RAW just glitches and the game breaks. It’s why I specifically stated that it’s how I would play it-not because it’s what the rules state, but because it feels to me a good way to model it.

It does not glitch or break, the rule about "must immediately disembark" is in response to a certain situation and takes precedence in this case, since that rule is more specific than the one about advancing and disembarking.

Where in the Rules can I find this, to show it to my Opponent ? I was told that Stratagems, Abilities override the Core Rules. But both Rules you must disembark when Transport destroyed and cannot disembark from an advanced Transport are both Core Rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not being able to disembark from a transport that advanced or fell back is NOT a phase rule. It’s for the whole turn.

And yes, Emergency Disembarkation is not RAW. In this case, RAW just glitches and the game breaks. It’s why I specifically stated that it’s how I would play it-not because it’s what the rules state, but because it feels to me a good way to model it.

Being able to disembark is a movement phase ability, would you argue that if you killed someone's transport in your shooting phase that they could not disembark from the destroyed transport as it wasn't their movement phase or would you accept that the destroyed transport rules give permission to disembark (out of phase) even though it uses vague undefined language like "must" and "immediately"?

There is no glitch in RAW in this case, it is no different than using an assault weapon as intended (another situation where advancing imposes a whole turn ban, but a specific rule with permission overrides it).

Faustpanzer wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not being able to disembark from a transport that advanced or fell back is NOT a phase rule. It’s for the whole turn.

And yes, Emergency Disembarkation is not RAW. In this case, RAW just glitches and the game breaks. It’s why I specifically stated that it’s how I would play it-not because it’s what the rules state, but because it feels to me a good way to model it.

It does not glitch or break, the rule about "must immediately disembark" is in response to a certain situation and takes precedence in this case, since that rule is more specific than the one about advancing and disembarking.

Where in the Rules can I find this, to show it to my Opponent ? I was told that Stratagems, Abilities override the Core Rules. But both Rules you must disembark when Transport destroyed and cannot disembark from an advanced Transport are both Core Rules.

It is not in the rules. it is how games in a permissive ruleset are written. The more specific rule takes precedence in a permissive ruleset.

Nothing is okay in a permissive ruleset unless the rules allow a thing to happen.

When the rules say you can't disembark after advancing, that means you can not opt to use the rules that allow a unit to disembark from a transport (Which is also in the Core Rules). In essence the rules that say you can't disembark after a transport moves take away the permission that was given to disembark a unit from a transport.

If the unit is forced to disembark, it is no longer a choice and you must do so as the transport has been destroyed. This overrides the rules about advancing because it is no longer a choice, as the unit must disembark in this situation.

Follow up Question. The advanced Transport has been destroyed, the Unit disembarked, what is their Movement Status ? A Unit that disembarked from a Transport that made a Normal Move counts as having made a Normal Move, but the Rules don't say anything about a Unit that disembarked from a Transport that advanced. Can they advance ? Can they charge ?

Faustpanzer wrote:
Follow up Question. The advanced Transport has been destroyed, the Unit disembarked, what is their Movement Status ? A Unit that disembarked from a Transport that made a Normal Move counts as having made a Normal Move, but the Rules don't say anything about a Unit that disembarked from a Transport that advanced. Can they advance ? Can they charge ?

Page 18 answers all of these questions. (2nd bullet point)

They can not move or charge.

So many ifs to get to the situation in this OP that I’m confident I’ll play out this entire edition before ever encountering this hypothetical.