open top

[Norseman]

I've submitted it to the Adepticon FAQ Team. i have been arguing this one on Dakka, and there seems to be support for both side of the coin.

I personally think there is no concrete proof for either side.

I think your interpretation of the rule is due to improper grammatical analysis but that just my opinion, and i could be wrong, I am not a English major.

[Ironhide]

I'm reading it as it is written. Given, the sentence does have some grammatical errors. It should have been written like this, "Passengers may not embark onto, or disembark, from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase."

At the end of the day, you can always just roll a D6.

[mrrshann618]

So IH It does state that a unit cannot disembark/embark if it moved or is going to move flat out in that movement phase.

However where does it say they cannot disembark/embark in THAT movement phase?

As the sentace reads the contion of pointing towards the vehicle moving a particular way or not.

IE, the vehicle moved Flat out in the movement phase, can the unit disembark? - Not in your turn, it blatently states that
However the condition for not being able to disembark technically does last unit the choice of moving flat out or not happens again. As could be interpreted by the "or going to move" of the sentance.

Since the wrecked/destroyed happens outside of the dictated sequence of allowances and the condition of flat out is still in effect, as shown by the obscurement saves, then a unit who is forced to disembark when it is unable to is destroyed. Same as if the exits were totally blocked off from a transport and the unit inside could not disembark outside of the 1" restriction. Can they Disembark a vehicle that gets wrecked (not exploded as you place your models inside the crated created) if there is nowhere that would not violate the 1" rule. Nope they get destroyed.

Everyone is reading it as written, however EVERYONE is placing different stresses and meanings on different words within the rule to prove their point.

[Norseman]

That's wonderful GW writing dept. for ya. Lets get as many guys in arguments as we can by writing obscure and poorly written rules.

[Ironhide]

@mrrshann618: Yes, it does state that they cannot embark/disembark, but only in that movement phase. It doesn't say turn. It also doesn't say that it last until the next movement phase either. People are implying that it does, but nowhere in the BRB does it state that it does.

The condition for disembarking voluntarily lasts until your next movement phase, but you can be forced to disembark the vehicle if it is wrecked or destroyed.

Same as if the exits were totally blocked off from a transport and the unit inside could not disembark outside of the 1" restriction. Can they Disembark a vehicle that gets wrecked (not exploded as you place your models inside the crated created) if there is nowhere that would not violate the 1" rule. Nope they get destroyed.

Yes they can. They can attempt an emergency disembarkation.

And please check your grammar and spelling. It was hard to decipher some of the stuff you wrote.

RAW, I would say they can disembark if the vehicle was destroyed in your opponents turn. RAI, I would say they are toast. Regardless, if you have a rule dispute, the easiest way to solve it is to roll a D6.

[Norseman]

@mrrshann618: Yes, it does state that they cannot embark/disembark, but only in that movement phase. It doesn't say turn. It also doesn't say that it last until the next movement phase either. People are implying that it does, but nowhere in the BRB does it state that it does.

That really is your interpretation... I read it a completely different way, I agree with Mrrshann.

My opinion is my interpretation, but really they are just like buttholes...Everyone's got one. Unless we can get concrete proof either way, it is a d6.

I was a member of the now defunct Outriders/GreyKnight. I will see if I can look up a few old contacts, and ask around. This is actually a pretty huge rule to be so ambiguous.

[MagickalMemories]

So IH It does state that a unit cannot disembark/embark if it moved or is going to move flat out in that movement phase.

However where does it say they cannot disembark/embark in THAT movement phase?

The rules you're quoting are rules for movement.
They're in the movement section.
If they were to affect different phases of the turn, then they would reference it.

Honestly, I play with a group of seasoned veteran gamers and have played in tournaments here, locally (St. Louis area), and I've NEVER encountered anyone saying/doing this. Makes no sense to me, rules-wise.

Eric

[usernamesareannoying]

...

[MagickalMemories]

...

Dude.
Don't spam.

If you don't have a constructive comment, please refrain from posting in the topic.

Thanks.

Eric

[don_mondo]

I've submitted it to the Adepticon FAQ Team. i have been arguing this one on Dakka, and there seems to be support for both side of the coin.

It's already been answered in the INAT.

RB.70H.01 – Q: If a transport vehicle is „Destroyed‟ in the same movement phase it is declared to be moving „flat out‟ (when ramming another vehicle, for example) are the models onboard destroyed?
A: Yes, in this case all models onboard count as being destroyed [clarification].

They equate "that movement phase" to "same movement phase". And so do I. Nothing states or implies that the limitation on disembarking extends past "that movement phase". Similar rules use terminology such as "until the beginning of the next movement phase" when they want it to last that long. No such limitation is applied to disembarkation, other than the normal limitation that you can only voluntarily disembark during your own movement phase. So as written, the limitation applies only to "that movement phase".

[Norseman]

The rules you're quoting are rules for movement.
They're in the movement section.
If they were to affect different phases of the turn, then they would reference it.

Honestly, I play with a group of seasoned veteran gamers and have played in tournaments here, locally (St. Louis area), and I've NEVER encountered anyone saying/doing this. Makes no sense to me, rules-wise.

I play with a group of seasoned veterans as well, and we all read it the way I have detailed in previous posts.

Even Ironhide seems to think that RAI is my understanding. If I take his meaning correctly.

RAW, I would say they can disembark if the vehicle was destroyed in your opponents turn. RAI, I would say they are toast. Regardless, if you have a rule dispute, the easiest way to solve it is to roll a D6.

Makes no sense to me, rules-wise.

It does make sense. If it is limited to the movement phase Orks and Eldar get a HUGE boost to their assault power.

[kturock]

That's wonderful GW writing dept. for ya. Lets get as many guys in arguments as we can by writing obscure and poorly written rules.

I must agree with Norseman. This is the 5th set of rules, which should have been proofread before published; yet is such a common occurance in game play, that the official answer, published in the front of every book, is; when in doubt roll a d6 and then argue it later.
And I was attacked and harranged when I complained about them.

Since GW's online support is no longer in exsistance; can't you call someone on the toll-free number? or is that just for sales again?

[Norseman]

The GW rules line is basically just the trolls from thier order desk... Most hard core gamers know more about the rules than these guys. i have called 4 times and been seriously disappointed every time. A friend called and asked about a contradiction and the lack of ability to field a force at 1000 points last editions Vampire counts and the guys answer was... Buy a better army!!! No joke!

[MagickalMemories]

@Norse

It does make sense. If it is limited to the movement phase Orks and Eldar get a HUGE boost to their assault power.

How?

Also, just for the record, my comments re: experienced gamers and tournaments was not an attempt to make it look like that's why my reading should be considered correct. It was just to show that I do have experience beyond a few idiots in a basement. LOL

I'd also like to see your comments re: the quote from the INAT faq, since you cited it as a source.

Eric

[Bosse]

It's already been answered in the INAT.

RB.70H.01 – Q: If a transport vehicle is „Destroyed‟ in the same movement phase it is declared to be moving „flat out‟ (when ramming another vehicle, for example) are the models onboard destroyed?
A: Yes, in this case all models onboard count as being destroyed [clarification].

They equate "that movement phase" to "same movement phase". And so do I. Nothing states or implies that the limitation on disembarking extends past "that movement phase". Similar rules use terminology such as "until the beginning of the next movement phase" when they want it to last that long. No such limitation is applied to disembarkation, other than the normal limitation that you can only voluntarily disembark during your own movement phase. So as written, the limitation applies only to "that movement phase".

I agree with Don Mondo that this is how the rule was written. If it were to disallow any kind of disembarking for more than just the movement phase it would need more specific language.