open top

[Norseman]

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

I believe that the INT FAQ has been altered since I first seen this. It could be because there has been a change in understanding or that it is still unclear, or that i am just plain wrong.

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

How?

There is a GREATLY reduced risk of losing assault troops by moving flat out and stopping right in front of an opponents unit, in plans of assaulting the unit next turn.

[MagickalMemories]

Okay. I get ya.
I was thinking you meant something more immediately valuable (like being closer for an assault on the SAME turn... which I know, is not possible). Since we were talking about what is and isn't allowed or happening in the SAME TURN, I was in "same turn" mode, not "future turns" mode.


Eric

[Ironhide]

RAI, I agree with you Norse. Only problem is that most tourneys play RAW. RAW tells me that the passengers cannot disembark in the same phase the vehicle moved flat out, not the turn the vehicle moved flat out. If you are going to dispute what is written on pg. 70, then you really need to find something in the BRB that backs you up. A TO just isn't going to rule in your favor because you think that is how the rule was intended.

It really doesn't make Orks or Eldar any more powerful than they already are. It's a tactic that any seasoned gamer could easily come up with a counter to. Move your guys out of assault range of the vehicle, shoot the vehicle down with one unit, and have other another unit take down the squad inside. Sure the vehicle gets a cover save, but there are weapons that can negate those; and fast transports are usually rather fragile.

[MagickalMemories]

To me, personally, I don't even see how you can see that it's "clearly" RAI.
Seems cut & dried to me.

Eric

[Ironhide]

Because, otherwise, what is the downside to going flat out?

[YoungWolf777]

Because, otherwise, what is the downside to going flat out?

Not being able to disembark and assault on the same turn?

[Imaginos]

Well, unless the squad is loaded up from the start of the game, you would have to spend turn 1 loading, turn 2 flat out, turn 3 disembark. That's a lot of a game tied up with units out of combat. That's the big drawback, IMO.

[mrrshann618]

@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.

In the post that you are referring to I never used the word turn, please quit implying that I am continuing to use it to make a point

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.

Actually it is perform an emergency disembarkation since they automatically succeed at doing it, there is no attempt. You might want to brush up on your english also.

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.

Personally I don't care about how everyone seems to play with "veteran" players. I'm considered a veteran player since I've been playing since 2nd myself. so I guess I can take my own advice when it comes to accurate rule interpretation. There is another point that I already stated: Everyone is reading it as written, however EVERYONE is placing different stresses and meanings on different words within the rule to prove their point. At this point there is no accurate RAW interpretation only what people think is the intention of what the designers wrote. If you are to go over to Heresy online I'm taking the exact opposite standpoint on this argument. I'll say this flat out, simply because the rule is ambigous. Which ruling taking precedence, you cannot disembark at all (there is no mention of voluntary or forced, only the implication) or the interpretation that the death by disembarking only happens in that movement phase

[Ironhide]

The rule as written in the rulebook.

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.

Reading that, it tells me that a unit may not embark or disembark (voluntarily or forced) from a fast vehicle if it goes, or intends to go flat out in that movement phase. After that movement phase is over they can be forced to disembark; since you can't embark or disembark in your shooting phase, or your opponent's turn.

"Passengers...", the unit affected by the rule. Simple enough.

"...may not embark onto or disembark from...", the consequences of performing the action that follows it. This covers all forms of embarking and disembarking. Voluntary or forced. If a person says they don't like ice cream, then that means they don't like any ice cream. It doesn't mean they might like cherry ice cream, because they have already stated that they don't like ice cream. If the rule says they may not embark or disembark, then it means any type of embarking or disembarking. If it only meant voluntary, it would have stated that. Same goes for "forced".

"..a fast vehicle...", that covers what type of vehicle the rule is talking about. Again, simple enough.

"...if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out...", if either of these actions are performed the consequences mentioned earlier come into effect.

"...in that movement phase.", the time frame that the rule takes effect in, and how long the rule last. If the rule was meant to last the entire player's turn, and on into the opponent's turn, it would state that. Thunder hammers always give you a time frame on how long the initiative 1 last, psychic powers always say how long they last, pinning always tells you how long it last; if the rule was meant to last until your next movement phase, then it would say so.

[MagickalMemories]

That would be exactly as I read it, too.

mrrrshann/Norseman: I'd love (honestly!) for you to dissect the sentence in the same manner from the opposite standpoint.
Thanks.

Eric

[Norseman]

I have already lol...

Reading that, it tells me that a unit may not embark or disembark (voluntarily or forced) from a fast vehicle if it goes, or intends to go flat out in that movement phase. After that movement phase is over they can be forced to disembark; since you can't embark or disembark in your shooting phase, or your opponent's turn.

"Passengers...", the unit affected by the rule. Simple enough.

"...may not embark onto or disembark from...", the consequences of performing the action that follows it. This covers all forms of embarking and disembarking. Voluntary or forced. If a person says they don't like ice cream, then that means they don't like any ice cream. It doesn't mean they might like cherry ice cream, because they have already stated that they don't like ice cream. If the rule says they may not embark or disembark, then it means any type of embarking or disembarking. If it only meant voluntary, it would have stated that. Same goes for "forced".

"..a fast vehicle...", that covers what type of vehicle the rule is talking about. Again, simple enough.

"...if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out...", if either of these actions are performed the consequences mentioned earlier come into effect.Everything good up to here

"...in that movement phase.", the time frame that the rule takes effect in, and how long the rule last. If the rule was meant to last the entire player's turn, and on into the opponent's turn, it would state that. Thunder hammers always give you a time frame on how long the initiative 1 last, psychic powers always say how long they last, pinning always tells you how long it last; if the rule was meant to last until your next movement phase, then it would say so.This is where i differ

This is how I read it...
"...in that movement phase.", the time frame in which the vehicle has the opportunity to enter into a state of moving "Flat out". Once entered into, that state lasts until the players following movement phase. As per all modes of movement which vehicles can enter into. In an opponents turn what do you look at to see how hard the vehicle is to hit in the HtH phase? What do you look at to see what happens to the vehicle if it is a skimmer and is Immobilized. You look at the previous turns movement. These rules set a precedence that can be applied to this situation. The Vehicle has entered into a state of moving Flat Out until it reaches its next movement phase, at which time that state is reset.

Why did they use that language.

I believe that when they used the language "....in that movement phase." They were trying to stipulate that it did not matter if the vehicle moved flat out in a previous movement phase. They were saying if the vehicle moved Flat out in that movement phase it couldn't disembark until it's next turn when it didn't move flat out in that movement phase.

You see it could be read in either way. That's why RAW can be interpreted either way. And if RAI could be accepted as the interpretation I am postulating, would it not seem reasonable that my understanding could be correct as well.

[don_mondo]

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

I believe that the INT FAQ has been altered since I first seen this. It could be because there has been a change in understanding or that it is still unclear, or that i am just plain wrong.

They did change the phrasing but the answer is the same. The previous quote is from v3.1. Below is from 2.0, from 22 Dec 2008. (we've had 2.1, 2.2, and 3.0 inbetween. They just cleaned it up a bit and fixed the misleading answer on 70H.01

RB.67A.02 – Q: If a unit embarks on a transport and
in the same movement phase the transport is
‘Destroyed’ (by ramming another vehicle, for
example) are the models onboard allowed to
disembark?
A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being
destroyed [clarification].
Ref: RB.70H.01

And RB.70H.01 – Q: If a transport vehicle is ‘Destroyed’ in
the same movement phase it moves ‘flat out’ (by
ramming another vehicle, for example) are the
models onboard destroyed?
A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being
destroyed [clarification].
Ref: RB.67A.02

[Norseman]

I have yet to hear from them on the clarification

This is what I sent them...

I have a rules question…

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].

Does this also pertain to destroyed results in the opponents turn, after a turn in which the transport traveled flat out.

We have been playing that it does, however I have read some interpretations that it does not.

[MagickalMemories]

This is how I read it...
"...in that movement phase.", the time frame in which the vehicle has the opportunity to enter into a state of moving "Flat out". Once entered into, that state lasts until the following players movement phase. As per all modes of movement which vehicles can enter into. In an opponents turn what do you look at to see how hard the vehicle is to hit in the HtH phase? What do you look at to see what happens to the vehicle if it is a skimmer and is Immobilized. You look at the previous turns movement. These rules set a precedence that can be applied to this situation. The Vehicle has entered into a state of moving Flat Out until it reaches its next movement phase, at which time that state is reset.

Why did they use that language.

I believe that when they used the language "....in that movement phase." They were trying to stipulate that it did not matter if the vehicle moved flat out in a previous movement phase. They were saying if the vehicle moved Flat out in that movement phase it couldn't disembark until it's next turn when it didn't move flat out in that movement phase.

You see it could be read in either way. That's why RAW can be interpreted either way. And if RAI could be accepted as the interpretation I am postulating, would it not seem reasonable that my understanding could be correct as well.

Respectfully (of course), I think you're interpreting the words, rather than reading them (if that makes sense).
The above quoted thought process requires you to read INTO what the author's meaning was, rather than take the words at face value. In my experience, that always causes problems.

Combining your example of what "in that movement phase" means with the rest of IH's description (since that is the only part you answered, I'm presuming that you agree with the rest of his statements - Please, correct me if I'm wrong):

"Passengers...", the unit affected by the rule. Simple enough.

"...may not embark onto or disembark from...", the consequences of performing the action that follows it. This covers all forms of embarking and disembarking. Voluntary or forced. If a person says they don't like ice cream, then that means they don't like any ice cream. It doesn't mean they might like cherry ice cream, because they have already stated that they don't like ice cream. If the rule says they may not embark or disembark, then it means any type of embarking or disembarking. If it only meant voluntary, it would have stated that. Same goes for "forced".

"..a fast vehicle...", that covers what type of vehicle the rule is talking about. Again, simple enough.

"...if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out...", if either of these actions are performed the consequences mentioned earlier come into effect.

"....in that movement phase." They were trying to stipulate that it did not matter if the vehicle moved flat out in a previous movement phase. They were saying if the vehicle moved Flat out in that movement phase it couldn't disembark until it's next turn when it didn't move flat out in that movement phase.

Maybe it's me but, in that context, your response just doesn't make a lot of sense. The rest of the sentence talks about THIS movement phase, and what happens during it. Suddenly, the last few words (without really finishing off the sentence they're in) refer to some previous or future incident? That doesn't fit with the way GW writes their rules.

Now, I agree that GW are the undisputed masters of ambiguity. Nobody does it better. If you look at the WAY they write their rules, though, their sentences DO have a certain structure and set of rules about them.
For example, if they're referring to foot troops, it's Infantry. If they're talking about the more general term, it's infantry. Saying "infantry" covers bikes, assault squads (jump infantry), etc. Knowing that one little difference changes the way sentences read, at times.
Same thing here. If GW is referring to something in the past or future, it is noted as such. Otherwise, they're in the "here and now." KWIM?

Same with this rule. Until/unless they say "the rest of the game turn," they aren't talking about the game turn.
Instead, they specifically refer to the movement phase without specifically acknowledging anything outside of the movement phase.

Eric

[Norseman]

This is how I read it...
"...in that movement phase.", the time frame in which the vehicle has the opportunity to enter into a state of moving "Flat out". Once entered into, that state lasts until the players following movement phase. As per all modes of movement which vehicles can enter into. In an opponents turn what do you look at to see how hard the vehicle is to hit in the HtH phase? What do you look at to see what happens to the vehicle if it is a skimmer and is Immobilized. You look at the previous turns movement. These rules set a precedence that can be applied to this situation. The Vehicle has entered into a state of moving Flat Out until it reaches its next movement phase, at which time that state is reset.

I had these words reversed in the original.

It makes PERFECT sense. I am building a rule on an already accepted convention in the game. GW always does that. They state something in the shooting rules for example and then build on it in a subsequent section of the rulebook. They do not have to state it again because it is already stated in the shooting rules.

All I am saying is that the STATE a vehicle has moved lasts until the PLAYERS next movement phase.