Falling back while embarked

[bob9801]

I didn't want to clutter the Doom of Malantai thread anymore but I am very currious; how do you fall back when you are embarked in a transport or building.


Originally Posted by BuFFo
If you have 5 models in a transport, and two die from Plasma, the unit has taken 25% casualties (which is checked at the end of both the Movement and Shooting Phases), and now suffers from a LD test to Fall Back.

This has existed since the start of 5th edition, and has never been addressed since it is so rare.

This could happen and has nothing to do with the outside world around the transport. It certainly does not happen to the transport. The rules say vehicles never take moral checks, but an embarked squad does not count as a vehicle.

[Nabterayl]

It isn't covered, so the way you do it is up to you. If you're inclined to play this way, I think measuring Fall Back distance from any access point on the vehicle is the most sensible way to do it.

It isn't covered because the following chain of logic:
The Fall Back rules require models to move a certain number of inches.
The models of embarked units are not on the table.
Consequently, the models of embarked units do not have a location from which to begin their Fall Back move.
Additionally, units can only Disembark in the Movement Phase, which poses problems for any unit that fails a Morale test except during their own Movement Phase.
Of course, this doesn't actually mean that units in transports are not required to Fall Back. It just means that the rules don't tell us how.

It's a little like if the rulebook told us, "Units that fail a Morale test must greeble a frap." The rulebook doesn't say how to greeble, and it doesn't say what a frap is, but the rule would still be there. Similarly, the Morale rules as written apply to embarked units, and therefore could require an embarked unit to Fall Back. The rulebook just doesn't say how to do that.

[bob9801]

This is quite an interesting problem. If anyone gets word from an official source or manages to find something in the rules that account for this I would most definitely like to here.

It does seam the easiest thing to do is disembark the unit and then measure the distance that they fall back. but the rules specifically say they may not disembark in any phase other than the movement. So... we are stuck.

[Sir Biscuit]

I'm actually a big fan of the "does not disembark, but counts as falling back" method, myself.

Just assume that they do not disembark, and do not move towards the board edge, but otherwise they follow the rules for falling back. That is, they count as having moved for the purposes of shooting, and if the transport is destroyed they'll continue to fall back normally. I like this way better, because it's bizarre that a squad would take enough casualties to retreat in their APC, and ditch their armored vehicle to run away!

However, this one is NOT covered in the rules, so it's really up to you or the tournament organizers wherever you play to house rule it when it happens.

[Mobious]

The peculiar part is that the rules for buildings should cover this. Seeing as template weapons may be fired into a buildings access point, effectively allowing you to kill models inside and cause a Ld test, therr should be some sort of ruling. But I just checked and there is not. How has this never come up?

[BuFFo]

The bit about 'not being on the table' is beyond ridiculous it is amazing.

It is a mechanic that is needed because you need to 1) put the unit somewhere when it is embarked and 2) used so players do not abuse Psychic Powers.

I have always felt that the defense that a unit is not on the table is a cop out. Trying to use a meta game reason for an action inside the game.

The unit is on the table. It is in the transport. Except when dealing with Psychic Powers. If the unit falls back, the unit HAS a location, it is inside the transport lol.

If a unit fails a morale check, it will fall back. The rule does not care where the unit is, as long as it fails the check.

But hey, don't take my word for it.

[TSINI]

I didn't want to clutter the Doom of Malantai thread anymore but I am very currious; how do you fall back when you are embarked in a transport or building.



This could happen and has nothing to do with the outside world around the transport. It certainly does not happen to the transport. The rules say vehicles never take moral checks, but an embarked squad does not count as a vehicle.

This is because you cannot inflict wounds on an embarked unit (no matter what people are reading due to the doom's Spirit leech rule)

The point of the transport is it effectively replaces the embarked unit on the table - counting the both of them as a vehicle unit, thus protecting the inside unit from outside influences.

despite people quoting rule after rule (page 66 and 67 vehicle disembarkation rules etc) I still see no evidence whatsoever that an embarked unit can ever fall back. Which in the morale part of the rule book requires the unit to be entirely destroyed. this is so against the spirit of the game - protection of the transport being negated due to a technicality, that this whole argument that the Doom of Malentai can effect a unit that is not even represented on the table is just clutching at straws.

[Shavnir]

This is because you cannot inflict wounds on an embarked unit (no matter what people are reading due to the doom's Spirit leech rule)

Fire ports, plasma guns. Your move.


The point of the transport is it effectively replaces the embarked unit on the table - counting the both of them as a vehicle unit, thus protecting the inside unit from outside influences.

I keep hearing people say "they both count as a vehicle unit" but I've yet to hear anyone explain why they think that. Its just bizzare...I honestly have no idea how that conclusion can be reached.

EDIT : and by people I mean you and Kloud from the Doom of Malan'tai. Seriously though if you'd like to come up with a logical argument that connects a to b I'd be very interested in it but at this point I've got to just say "what the hell are you smoking."


despite people quoting rule after rule (page 66 and 67 vehicle disembarkation rules etc) I still see no evidence whatsoever that an embarked unit can ever fall back. Which in the morale part of the rule book requires the unit to be entirely destroyed. this is so against the spirit of the game - protection of the transport being negated due to a technicality, that this whole argument that the Doom of Malentai can effect a unit that is not even represented on the table is just clutching at straws.

The unit is in the transport, if the transport is within 6" of the doom, the embarked unit is. Simple as that.

[TSINI]

My main thought process with this whole conundrum is the lack (and i mean total and utter lack of) of rules covering a unit recieving wounds whilst on board a transport, the failing a morale check.

I mean the simplest way to solve this entire issue would be saying units in transports ignore moral checks - until they disembark.

But its as if GW have assumed units in transports are just immune to taking wounds. they've even ignored the plasma fire port problem. dismissing it as "it would never happen" even though it could.

I mean, everyone is allowed their own opinion. in my opinion (and the way i would play against an opponent) I would never try to affect a unit in a transport using Spirit leech or anything else. I would always disembark my troops from a transport to claim an objective. and I wouldn't make them take a moral check from plasma wounds whilst embarked until the unit disembarks.

This is how I would and do play the game. others might not agree, but I'd rather lose a game than abuse the rules and annoy my opponent.

[yergerjo]

The bit about 'not being on the table' is beyond ridiculous it is amazing.

It is a mechanic that is needed because you need to 1) put the unit somewhere when it is embarked and 2) used so players do not abuse Psychic Powers.

I have always felt that the defense that a unit is not on the table is a cop out. Trying to use a meta game reason for an action inside the game.

The unit is on the table. It is in the transport. Except when dealing with Psychic Powers. If the unit falls back, the unit HAS a location, it is inside the transport lol.

If a unit fails a morale check, it will fall back. The rule does not care where the unit is, as long as it fails the check.

But hey, don't take my word for it.

So which Raider has which Wych Squad in it? Which one has the Archon?

[Bean]

The bit about 'not being on the table' is beyond ridiculous it is amazing.

It is a mechanic that is needed because you need to 1) put the unit somewhere when it is embarked and 2) used so players do not abuse Psychic Powers.

I have always felt that the defense that a unit is not on the table is a cop out. Trying to use a meta game reason for an action inside the game.

The unit is on the table. It is in the transport. Except when dealing with Psychic Powers. If the unit falls back, the unit HAS a location, it is inside the transport lol.

If a unit fails a morale check, it will fall back. The rule does not care where the unit is, as long as it fails the check.

But hey, don't take my word for it.

I agree that they fall back, but the rules are quite specific when they note that the models are taken off the table.

All actions in the game are justified by meta-game reasons. The rules are 100% meta-game. Or, more specifically, the game is 100% the rules. What you're really trying to say is that you don't like people using a rule when it doesn't mesh well with the fluff the rule is trying to represent. That's fine, but it's not a functional viewpoint to take.

When we play the game, we follow the rules. Otherwise, there is no game, and we're just pushing our models around the table making "vroom" and "dakka" noises. That might be your idea of fun, but it isn't a game.

The rules say the models are removed from the table. Thus, they are removed from the table. Thus they aren't on the table. The models aren't in the transport.

Fortunately, the fact that the unit is effectively co-extensive with the transport seems sufficient (to me) to indicate that they should fall back.

[BuFFo]

So which Raider has which Wych Squad in it? Which one has the Archon?

This one has the Wyches and that one has the Archon.

????


I agree that they fall back, but the rules are quite specific when they note that the models are taken off the table.

I don't have the rules book on me, but is when you embark, are the models removed from the table, or is the unit removed from the game? How is it worded?

[Nabterayl]

I don't have the rules book on me, but is when you embark, are the models removed from the table, or is the unit removed from the game? How is it worded?
Page 66:


When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported (we find that placing one of the unit's models on top of the transport works well!). If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

For reference, from page 45:


Units normally fall back 2D6". Fall back moves are not slowed by difficult terrain, but tests for dangerous terrain are taken as normal.

Each model in the unit falls back directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route. If playing a mission where there is no 'own' table edge, models fall back towards the closest table edge instead.

[BuFFo]

Page 66:


When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported (we find that placing one of the unit's models on top of the transport works well!). If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

For reference, from page 45:


Units normally fall back 2D6". Fall back moves are not slowed by difficult terrain, but tests for dangerous terrain are taken as normal.

Each model in the unit falls back directly towards their own table edge by the shortest possible route. If playing a mission where there is no 'own' table edge, models fall back towards the closest table edge instead.

Thank you :) I don't normally deal with embarked rules, but it is nice to know the unit is still on the table and in the game. I never really cared to think otherwise normally, so this never comes up in play.

I appreciate your help very much!

[Absolutionis]

So which Raider has which Wych Squad in it? Which one has the Archon?
"When a unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported."


I don't have the rules book on me, but is when you embark, are the models removed from the table, or is the unit removed from the game? How is it worded?

"When a unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported."

[Nabterayl]

Not sure anybody's ever really seriously suggested that the unit isn't on the table. It's pretty clear, though, that the models aren't. That's the RAW weirdness, since you move units by their constituent models. It's a perfectly reasonable gloss to say that for Falling Back purposes each model counts as starting at any point of any access point on the transport, but it's still a gloss.

Not saying it can't be done. Just saying that it can't be done without glossing a gap in the rules.

[BuFFo]

Oh, it is quite clear from reading half of the posts lately around BoLs that people DO think the unit is actually 'off table' and therefore immune to many things in game.

[Nabterayl]

Nah, I don't think so. The Doom of Malan'tai thread is an attempt to figure out whether the way people play has any basis in the rules. Unit location is just an obvious line of inquiry. But regardless, unit location is not actually important for purposes of movement, from a strictly RAW point of view.

[Bean]

It's true. For normal movement, the position of the unit isn't really important--what matters is the position of each model in the unit, since the models move independently.

And yes, the unit is effectively on the table while embarked, and coexistent with its transport. None of the models themselves, though, are.

Personally, as I've said before, I think each model falls back from any position within the transport. I think they have to fall back. I don't think they have to disembark, and I don't think it matters where the transport's hatches are. I do think that, since the unit falls back, you can (and must) measure the distance it falls back from the transport.

You only have to infer two things, really: that once the unit falls back, you have to put the models back on the board, and that when you put the models back on the board, their positions have to generally correspond with the position of the unit when it was in the transport translated the correct distance towards the edge of the board.

I normally don't like to infer anything, but otherwise the game actually just breaks and can't continue, and I think these are the most reasonable inferences to make.

[sebi81]

This is really a tough question... As it is not stated in the rules there is in my opinion no right or wrong answer. It´s just not ruled. On the one hand you could say that an embarked unit can´t move without disembarking. So it just can´t fall back.
On the other hand you could say that it´s a unit loosing 25% of its members in one shooting phase and therefore must fall back, if it failes the moral check.
In a game where this rare problem would occure I would allow the enemy to stay in his transport without falling back. In the opposite way I would disembark and fall back, if the enemy wants me to.

[Renegade]

It could be down to the wording in my old, but it wouldn't fall back from overheats due to the wounds not being taken from enemy fire. The rules are clear what can and cant effect unit in a transport. I have never seen it written or played that they would fall back or that things like Moral Checks or The Doom can effect units while transported, unless what is effecting them specifically says otherwise.

[Culven]

Fifth edition changed what can cause a 25% Casualties Morale check. It is no longer restricted to enemy shooting. This means that Gets Hot and Dnagerous Terrain can both trigger the Morale check in one's own turn.

[Tynskel]

The rules are clear.

(p.67)
you disembark (forced- not voluntary, exception to p.66).
'Emergency' disembark (p.67)- this situation prevents you from shooting in the shooting phase, or assaulting in the assault phase (but you couldn't initiate an assault due to falling back). Fall back overrides this rule because one is still completing the 'fall back move' (p.45).
Then you run the distance prescribed for the 'falling back' move (p.45).
If disembarkation is impossible, they can't disembark (p.67)- the unit is destroyed: (p.45), as the reason you cannot disembark is due to impassable terrain (otherwise you would have disembarked), and you have become 'Trapped' (your squad opens the door and falls off the cliff, shot to death, slaughtered, broken, is crushed by the transport, whatever!).

[BuFFo]

It could be down to the wording in my old, but it wouldn't fall back from overheats due to the wounds not being taken from enemy fire. The rules are clear what can and cant effect unit in a transport. I have never seen it written or played that they would fall back or that things like Moral Checks or The Doom can effect units while transported, unless what is effecting them specifically says otherwise.

You need to pick up a 5th edition rule book. Things have changed since your 'old'. Fall Back can occur from anything, really, and in the Movement and Shooting phases. Yes, over heating will cause you to fall back.

[rle68]

Fire ports, plasma guns. Your move.



I keep hearing people say "they both count as a vehicle unit" but I've yet to hear anyone explain why they think that. Its just bizzare...I honestly have no idea how that conclusion can be reached.

EDIT : and by people I mean you and Kloud from the Doom of Malan'tai. Seriously though if you'd like to come up with a logical argument that connects a to b I'd be very interested in it but at this point I've got to just say "what the hell are you smoking."



The unit is in the transport, if the transport is within 6" of the doom, the embarked unit is. Simple as that.

If i was to take your point on that then i can shoot a melta gun at a character inside of the transport and shoot him directly since hes within the 12" rule and then kill him in the transport and ignore the vehicle hes riding in thats the stupidest thing i have ever seen anyone type.

the bottom line is this the rule book does not say you may shoot any unit in a transport if you find a rule that says you can then you win until you do find a rule that says you may shoot at or affect a unit in a transport the arguement is over and you have failed here ended the lesson

[rle68]

Thank you :) I don't normally deal with embarked rules, but it is nice to know the unit is still on the table and in the game. I never really cared to think otherwise normally, so this never comes up in play.

I appreciate your help very much!

hello ???? """"it is removed from the table"""" what is the problem here

[Bean]

If i was to take your point on that then i can shoot a melta gun at a character inside of the transport and shoot him directly since hes within the 12" rule and then kill him in the transport and ignore the vehicle hes riding in thats the stupidest thing i have ever seen anyone type.

the bottom line is this the rule book does not say you may shoot any unit in a transport if you find a rule that says you can then you win until you do find a rule that says you may shoot at or affect a unit in a transport the arguement is over and you have failed here ended the lesson

What in the world are you trying to say, here? This is almost completely incoherent, and the parts that are actually intelligible are just wrong.

[rle68]

Bean

""""Personally, as I've said before, I think each model falls back from any position within the transport"""

I dont know you and i dont have any dislike for you but i dont care what you think.. back it up with rules or drop it.

in the absence of a rule saying otherwise you lose.. im sick of this RAI the book doesnt play by intent its played by RAW

friendly games are one animal, tournements are another you want to work it out in a local group thats great i salute you but dont try to influence the other players not in your group with nothing more then an opinion

[rle68]

What in the world are you trying to say, here? This is almost completely incoherent, and the parts that are actually intelligible are just wrong.

Yeah any thing you dont agree with has to be wrong right

fact is nothing in your opinion is based by any facts at all in abscence of fact you use your opinion which is no more valid than any one elses i choose to go by rules as they are written have a nice day

[Shavnir]

If i was to take your point on that then i can shoot a melta gun at a character inside of the transport and shoot him directly since hes within the 12" rule and then kill him in the transport and ignore the vehicle hes riding in thats the stupidest thing i have ever seen anyone type.

the bottom line is this the rule book does not say you may shoot any unit in a transport if you find a rule that says you can then you win until you do find a rule that says you may shoot at or affect a unit in a transport the arguement is over and you have failed here ended the lesson

To shoot a model you need to have los and range to a model, not a unit. You did however masterfully manage to miss my (admittedly poorly worded) point which went "if you have 2 plasma guns in a 5 man squad shooting out of the firing ports of a rhino and they both Get Hot! what happens if you fail the resulting Ld check".

That being said I'd reccomend calming down before you make too much more of a fool of yourself online. Its bad form.

[rle68]

To shoot a model you need to have los and range to a model, not a unit. You did however masterfully manage to miss my (admittedly poorly worded) point which went "if you have 2 plasma guns in a 5 man squad shooting out of the firing ports of a rhino and they both Get Hot! what happens if you fail the resulting Ld check".

That being said I'd reccomend calming down before you make too much more of a fool of yourself online. Its bad form.

No i did not miss your plasma gun referrance as it was buffo who brought it up originally albeit in another thread perhaps

your point was they were within range they can be hit thats as much of a nonsense statement as my trying to shoot a character inside of a transport can not be done.

where the new rule states that any time you take a wound requiring a ld check you take it, but no where does it then state that you have to disembark from a transport it mentions what you have to do.. in the abscence yet again of a rule stating models must disembrak if they fail a ld check from internal wounds suffered while in a transport they dont have to disembark. as you cant target them with a shooting attack or a psychic attack how is this any different?


EDIT: someone check the actual wording on leadership/morale check i think it says from a shooting attack a plasma overheat is not a shooting attack and if thats what it says, then the self inflicted wound would not count... disregard page 44 says each phase... but does not mention disembarking anywhere in the book so the point is moot

However it does say that vehicles never take morale checks page 63. thus units in the vehicle are treated as inside the transport thus the unit doesnt have to make them

save your insult comments for someone who actually cares

[Bean]

EDIT: someone check the actuall wording on leadership/morale check i think it says from a shooting attack a plasma overheat is not a shooting attack and if thats what it says, then the self inflicted wound would not count

Why don't you check the rulebook and see that you are absolutely wrong?

It's on page 44:

"A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a morale check at the end of the phase, or else it will fall back. Do not count casualties caused by close combat attacks, as they are covered later in C) Losing an Assault"

Overheat wounds from plasma weapons can, indeed, cause a morale test.




However it does say that vehicles never take morale checks page 63. thus units in the vehicle are treated as inside the transport thus the unit doesnt have to make them


This is the most absurd nonsense I have ever seen.

The fact that vehicles never take morale checks does not, in any way, mean that units in the vehicle don't have to take them.

That's pure, baseless fabrication on your part.

So far, you have added nothing at all worthwhile to this conversation. You misread Shav's post, posted some incoherent nonsense, then posted some stuff that was flat-out incorrect. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say in all of this, but if you're trying to say that units in transports never take morale tests, you're just laughably wrong.

If you're trying to say that units can't fal backl out of transports, that's fine. Like my opinion on what should happen to a unit that's falling back, there's very little to support any resolution to this issue.

Two thoughts, to close: When writing, try to write in complete, discrete sentences which have obvious beginnings and ends. Express yourself in full, discrete thoughts. Use capitalization and punctuation. If you do, in fact, have anything to say, you'll get it across better if your writing is coherent. In your last few posts, it just hasn't been.

[Shavnir]

However it does say that vehicles never take morale checks page 63. thus units in the vehicle are treated as inside the transport thus the unit doesnt have to make them

What in the hell are you smoking and where can I get some. You do not change unit types when you embark on a vehicle.

EDIT for a bit of content


No i did not miss your plasma gun referrance as it was buffo who brought it up originally albeit in another thread perhaps

your point was they were within range they can be hit thats as much of a nonsense statement as my trying to shoot a character inside of a transport can not be done.

The Doom of Malantai's Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack. It is not an attack. All it cares about is if the enemy is in range, then it does an effect. Just like a psychic hood working from on a power being cast out a firing port.

[BuFFo]

hello ???? """"it is removed from the table"""" what is the problem here

Removed from the table because the physical models have to go SOMEWHERE, but the unit itself is still on the table, in the game, inside the transport.

[RealGenius]

Thank you :) I don't normally deal with embarked rules, but it is nice to know the unit is still on the table and in the game.

The whole "not on the table" came from the old 4th Edition rule book FAQ. So if you hear someone giving that argument, tell them to check out 5th Edition.

I can't see why you'd get out. The transport section says that you can only embark and disembark in the Movement phase unless the transport is destroyed. I can't think of a scenario where any embarked unit would take wounds and fail morale in any Movement phase.

Edit: the only other way I could see it read is that an embarked unit that fails a moral check is destroyed because it is completely surrounded by friendly units and can't make a fallback move.

Maybe it makes the most sense that the embarked unit counts as going to ground, but I just made that up.

[rle68]

Why don't you check the rulebook and see that you are absolutely wrong?

It's on page 44:

"A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a morale check at the end of the phase, or else it will fall back. Do not count casualties caused by close combat attacks, as they are covered later in C) Losing an Assault"

Overheat wounds from plasma weapons can, indeed, cause a morale test.




This is the most absurd nonsense I have ever seen.

The fact that vehicles never take morale checks does not, in any way, mean that units in the vehicle don't have to take them.

That's pure, baseless fabrication on your part.

So far, you have added nothing at all worthwhile to this conversation. You misread Shav's post, posted some incoherent nonsense, then posted some stuff that was flat-out incorrect. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say in all of this, but if you're trying to say that units in transports never take morale tests, you're just laughably wrong.

If you're trying to say that units can't fall out of transports, that's fine. Like my opinion on what should happen to a unit that's falling back, there's very little to support any resolution to this issue.

Two thoughts, to close. When writing, try to write in complete, discrete sentences which have obvious beginnings and ends. Express yourself in full, discrete thoughts. Use capitalization and punctuation. If you do, in fact, have anything to say, you'll get it across better if your writing is coherent. In your last few posts, it just hasn't been.

Bottom line here you dont agree with my view so you have to attack me persoanlly instead of attacking the point of you are voicing an opinion which has 0 weight in any discussion. opinions are like a$$es every one has one and they all stink.

i have backed it up by facts and even went back and pointed out page numbers when i wasnt clear so spare me your indignation. no where in anythign i posted was i anywhere near wrong

i am saying units dont fall back when inside a transport and no rules overrides that statement anywhere in the book

nor is there any rule posted anywhere that says a unit may be affected by anything when inside a transport period.

the DOM power does not say it affects units inside of transports does it ? no it doesnt . thus it cant affect them period end of sentence

and as page 63 does indeed state that vehicles are not required to make morale checks and on page 67 is the only mention of how a unit in a transport is affected thus i can make the statement other than on page 67 they are never required to take a morale check

[BuFFo]

The whole "not on the table" came from the old 4th Edition rule book FAQ. So if you hear someone giving that argument, tell them to check out 5th Edition.

I can't see why you'd get out. The transport section says that you can only embark and disembark in the Movement phase unless the transport is destroyed. I can't think of a scenario where any embarked unit would take wounds and fail morale in any Movement phase.

Edit: the only other way I could see it read is that an embarked unit that fails a moral check is destroyed because it is completely surrounded by friendly units and can't make a fallback move.

I agree, you can only Embark and Disembark voluntarily at certain times. By why does a basic rule telling you to fall back when a morale test is failed overridden by another basic rule which has nothing to do with Falling Back?

Basically, why do you choose to have 'Embarking and Disembarking' override 'Falling Back'? No where in 'Embarking and Disembarking' are you told the unit is locked in forever, and no where are you told to ignore Falling Back.

When Falling Back happens, you just do it. The transport is not a magical prison preventing you to do so.

This is my point of view, that is all. I have no problem playing with this rule either way if my opponent wants.

[rle68]

What in the hell are you smoking and where can I get some. You do not change unit types when you embark on a vehicle.

EDIT for a bit of content



The Doom of Malantai's Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack. It is not an attack. All it cares about is if the enemy is in range, then it does an effect. Just like a psychic hood working from on a power being cast out a firing port.


Oh no you dont want to go there do you ? so because it doesnt say it you assume it does? where does it say it affects units in transports? it doesnt end of statement. thus i and everyone else will agree with you any unit in range and not in a transport will be affected.

read page 63 before you show your ignorance and then read page 67 on affects to units in transports and no where does it say they are affected by anything short of damage to the vehicle end of story
'
and the psychic affects are treated the way they are as they are in the rule book that way

your entire arguement isnt documented anywhere in any source

[rle68]

I agree, you can only Embark and Disembark voluntarily at certain times. By why does a basic rule telling you to fall back when a morale test is failed overridden by another basic rule which has nothing to do with Falling Back?

Basically, why do you choose to have 'Embarking and Disembarking' override 'Falling Back'? No where in 'Embarking and Disembarking' are you told the unit is locked in forever, and no where are you told to ignore Falling Back.

When Falling Back happens, you just do it. The transport is not a magical prison preventing you to do so.

This is my point of view, that is all. I have no problem playing with this rule either way if my opponent wants.

I dont disagree with you in principle.. other then the fcat they omitted the rule from anywhere in the book if they added it i would be fine with it as well but as you well know if it isnt in the book then it doesnt happen

im not saying thats the best thing but thats what we have

[Shavnir]

Oh no you dont want to go there do you ? so because it doesnt say it you assume it does? where does it say it affects units in transports? it doesnt end of statement. thus i and everyone else will agree with you any unit in range and not in a transport will be affected.

Specifically the combination of rules says it does and there's nothing that says it doesn't.


read page 63 before you show your ignorance and then read page 67 on affects to units in transports and no where does it say they are affected by anything short of damage to the vehicle end of story


Page 63 : Vehicles never take morale checks for any reason
Page 67 : If you destroy a transport you're allowed to assualt the troops inside

Neither of these address the combination of an aura effect and being embarked on a vehicle within range of one. Would you say that psychic hoods work with a vehicle in the way? It is the same scenario, the same type of rule, this one just happens to kill people instead of nullifying psychic powers.



and the psychic affects are treated the way they are as they are in the rule book that way

your entire arguement isnt documented anywhere in any source

The Doom of Malan'tai's Spirit Leech is not a psychic attack. It is not an attack. It is not an attack. I keep saying that and you keep saying its an attack.

Also since we're quoting page numbers, page 66 of the BRB and page 58 of the new Tyranid book are all the rules you need to prove you wrong.

Anyways if you want to make the claim that embarked troops count as vehicles you're going to need to back that assertion up with a page number. Or at least a tiny shred of logic.

[rle68]

well let me end the plasma gun arguement once and forall

the double plasma kill will not happen as you may only fire one weapon from the firing port page 66 unless specified different in the vehicles rules

so thats one issue down

[rle68]

Specifically the combination of rules says it does and there's nothing that says it doesn't.




Page 63 : Vehicles never take morale checks for any reason
Page 67 : If you destroy a transport you're allowed to assualt the troops inside

Neither of these address the combination of an aura effect and being embarked on a vehicle within range of one. Would you say that psychic hoods work with a vehicle in the way? It is the same scenario, the same type of rule, this one just happens to kill people instead of nullifying psychic powers.




The Doom of Malan'tai's Spirit Leech is not a psychic attack. It is not an attack. It is not an attack. I keep saying that and you keep saying its an attack.

Also since we're quoting page numbers, page 66 of the BRB and page 58 of the new Tyranid book are all the rules you need to prove you wrong.

Anyways if you want to make the claim that embarked troops count as vehicles you're going to need to back that assertion up with a page number. Or at least a tiny shred of logic.

what are you smoking?
it spells out what happens to units in transports on page 67 thats it nothign else effects them while in a transport not from my opion but by the rulebook which says so


the rulebook does not say anywhere in any source that you can affect a unit in a transport except by the terms dictated on page 67

thus your DOM attack wont affect a unit in a transport.. i will go so far as to even use fluff to prove one aspect of my point ill tell you to stick it if you try to tell me that your liitle bugs are going to affect a water tight air tight landraider that by fluff can fight underwater so explain that ?

and your way off with your psychic analogy as the rules for psychic hoods say exactly how they work and dont work in any other way

hoods dont have to have line of sight they affect the pchyic event as its cast thus it says it does, period....

your DOM does not say it affects units in transports it says it affects units and the rulebook is very clear how units in transports are affected thus DOM DOES NOT AFFECT UNITS IN TRANSPORTS UNITL THE FAQ OR ERRATA FOR GW SAYS OTHERWISE

[Shavnir]

well let me end the plasma gun arguement once and forall

the double plasma kill will not happen as you may only fire one weapon from the firing port page 66 unless specified different in the vehicles rules

so thats one issue down

Two things.

1 : 4 man squad
2 : 2 firing ports on a rhino


what are you smoking?
it spells out what happens to units in transports on page 67 thats it nothign else effects them while in a transport not from my opion but by the rulebooks which says so


the rulebooks does not say anywhere in any source that you can affect a unit in a trnasport except by the terms dictated on page 67

thus your DOM attack wont affect a unit in a transport.. i will go so far as to even use fluff to prove one aspect of my point ill tell you to stick it if you try to tell me that your liitle bugs are going to affect a water tight air tight landraider that by fluff can fight underwater so explain that ?

It spells out the effects of damage on the transport to occupants on page 67. I might be missing a line but where do you get your "nothing else can effect them" bit?

Fluff : A wizard did it. If you're really unable to debate and are forced to bring up fluff you should just bow out. This is getting embarrassing.

[Bean]

Bottom line here you dont agree with my view so you have to attack me persoanlly instead of attacking the point of you are voicing an opinion which has 0 weight in any discussion. opinions are like a$$es every one has one and they all stink.

Since beginning this discussion with you, I have not asserted any opinions.

I have merely stated the facts.



i have backed it up by facts and even went back and pointed out page numbers when i wasnt clear so spare me your indignation. no where in anythign i posted was i anywhere near wrong


No, you didn't. Again, you're just making things up. None of the pages to which you referred us support your position at all. You have presented no facts to back up your assertions, which is understandable, given that there aren't any.



i am saying units dont fall back when inside a transport and no rules overrides that statement anywhere in the book


This is false. There are rules which say that, under certain circumstance, a unit must fall back. These conditions can be met by embarked units, and no rules anywhere grant embarked units any sort of immunity or exemption.




nor is there any rule posted anywhere that says a unit may be affected by anything when inside a transport period.

Again, this is strictly false. There are plenty of things which affect units meeting certain criteria (which can be met by embarked units) and which grant no embarked units no immunity or exemption.

Your reasoning appears to be based on the notion that embarked units have some sort of blanket immunity or protection from everything which must be specifically overcome by each thing which might want to affect them. However, no such immunity or protection exists. Rules like the ones for Morale Tests abilities like Spirit Leech don't need to specifically state that they affect embarked units. They affect all units which meet certain criteria. When an embarked unit meets the right criteria, it is affected. There are no rules which protect or exempt them from either the Doom or Morale Tests.



the DOM power does not say it affects units inside of transports does it ? no it doesnt .

Actually, it does. It affects all enemy, non-vehicle units within 6". An embarked enemy unit in a transport within 6" is a non-vehicle enemy unit within 6". Thus, the Doom's power does, indeed, say that such a unit is affected.


thus it cant affect them period end of sentence

Your inability to read the rules properly is unsurprising, given your inability to write effectively. Perhaps you should go back to school, then come back to us when you're sufficiently literate to actually participate in this conversation in a meaningful manner.




and as page 63 does indeed state that vehicles are not required to make morale checks and on page 67 is the only mention of how a unit in a transport is affected thus i can make the statement other than on page 67 they are never required to take a morale check

Page 67 does not suggest or assert that embarked units cannot be affected in ways other than those described on page 67.

Page 63 protects vehicles from making morale tests. It says nothing about morale tests for embarked units.

So, again, the "facts" you're using to support your position are either wrong or you've applied them in an irrational manner.

Nothing supports your position. This is not my opinion, it is a simple fact.

You are just wrong.

[rle68]

Two things.

1 : 4 man squad
2 : 2 firing ports on a rhino



It spells out the effects of damage on the transport to occupants on page 67. I might be missing a line but where do you get your "nothing else can effect them" bit?

Fluff : A wizard did it. If you're really unable to debate and are forced to bring up fluff you should just bow out. This is getting embarrassing.

because there is no other rule anywhere in the book thats says they are

spare me your fluff insult i used that as a single point to prove your opinion wrong never said the fluff was the deciding factor spre me please

fire points page 67 says only one person may fire unless the vehicle entry says other wise.. how many units in C:SM have two assault weapons not too many that i know of

[Shavnir]

because there is no other rule anywhere in the book thats says they are

I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say here. Type a bit more slowly and attempt to read what you wrote before you continue. Also once again just because there's some special rules for embarked units taking damage when the transport vehicle takes hits does not translate to that being the sole source of damage.


spare me your fluff insult i used that as a single point to prove your opinion wrong never said the fluff was the deciding factor spre me please

You brought fluff to a rules debate, not me.


fire points page 67 says only one person may fire unless the vehicle entry says other wise.. how many units in C:SM have two assault weapons not too many that i know of

It doesn't matter how many fire points you have, if you have a 4 man squad losing one will still cause a leadership test. Its a completely moot point.

[rle68]

Bean

show me the rule and page number right now that says a unit must disembark if they fall a morale check

show me the page it doesnt exist

[rle68]

I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say here. Type a bit more slowly and attempt to read what you wrote before you continue. Also once again just because there's some special rules for embarked units taking damage when the transport vehicle takes hits does not translate to that being the sole source of damage.



You brought fluff to a rules debate, not me.



It doesn't matter how many fire points you have, if you have a 4 man squad losing one will still cause a leadership test. Its a completely moot point.


show me by page number anywhere in the book that a unit in a transport is affected by outside events.. except as dictated by damage to a vehicle, show me the page

until you do.. it doesnt exist thus you can not affect a unit in a transport except by destroying the vehicle

its very clear

and now its a 4 man squad versus the 5 that started this nonsense lmfao

[Shavnir]

show me by page number anywhere in the book that a unit in atransport is affected by outside events.. except as dictated by damage to a vehicle show me the page

until you do it doesnt exist thus you can not affect a unit in a transport except by destroying the vehicle its very clear and i write in english maybe you need to go back to school

Where is the rule that says units in transports are not affected by normal effects?

[rle68]

Where is the rule that says units in transports are not affected by normal effects?


no no no.. no you dont.. you show me where they are, i dont have to prove a negative you have to show me where they are

page 67 is the only place in the book that shows affects on units in transports thats my validation right there

and unless an ability or a weapon says differently no notation anywhere says they are affected no negative needs to be provern past what is there.. you have to show me a positive which you cannot

[Shavnir]

no no no.. no you dont.. you show me where they are, i dont have to prove a negative you have to show me where they are

page 67 is the only place in the book that shows affects on units in transports thats my validation right there

I believe in the case of normal behavior vs special exception the burden of proof falls on the special exception. IANAL though, I just play one on the internet.

[Dark_Templar]

no no no.. no you dont.. you show me where they are, i dont have to prove a negative you have to show me where they are

page 67 is the only place in the book that shows affects on units in transports thats my validation right there

lol.

I think it is time to call for exterminatus on this thread.

[Shavnir]

lol.

I think it is time to call for exterminatus on this thread.

No wait, I want to see if he thinks units in transports are immune to Gets Hot! and Perils of the Warp.

[Dark_Templar]

No wait, I want to see if he thinks units in transports are immune to Gets Hot! and Perils of the Warp.

They also do not count against the points when making your army list, are always scoring, and shoot meltashots from their bioenhanced anus'.

[rle68]

No wait, I want to see if he thinks units in transports are immune to Gets Hot! and Perils of the Warp.

they are affected by that dont start being petty now i said they cant be affected by outside affects not by their own

they are doing the shooting.. shooting affects them cus it says it does as does perils of the warp cus it says they do

again you failed to show me anywhere where an outside affect will affect them

[rle68]

lol.

I think it is time to call for exterminatus on this thread.

Couldnt agree with you more i have had enough stupidity for one month

[Shavnir]

they are affected by that dont start being petty now i said they cant be affected by outside affects not by their own

they are doing the shooting.. shooting affects them cus it says it does as does perils of the warp cus it says they do

again you failed to show me anywhere where an outside affect will affect them

Show me where it says they're affected by Gets Hot!

There's nothing that forbids inside effects ergo inside effects work. There's nothing that forbids outside effects ergo outside effects work.

[rle68]

Show me where it says they're affected by Gets Hot!

There's nothing that forbids inside effects ergo inside effects work. There's nothing that forbids outside effects ergo outside effects work.

typical rants from a malcontent... the rules for gets hot applies to the weapon thats says it gets hot they fire the weapon it has the chance to get hot thats not an outside source affecting that, that is an interior source from an action done by that unit thus the rules for gets hot says it does


firing a weapon is an affect that affects the unit regardless of where it is cus it says it does

you still can not find me a page number or a single rule that says any ability, weapon, or affect from an enemy unit can affect a unit embarked on a transport

[Shavnir]

typical rants from a malcontent... the rules for gets hot applies to the weapon thats says it gets hot they fire the weapon it has the chance to get hot thats not an outside source affecting that, that is an interior source from an action done by that unit thus the rules for gets hot says it does


firing a weapon is an affect that affects the unit regardless of where it is cus it says it does

If irony was gold I'd be set to retire.

Seriously though, are you one of my buddies trying to pull a prank on me by arguing poorly on the internet? They've done that before.

[rle68]

If irony was gold I'd be set to retire.

Seriously though, are you one of my buddies trying to pull a prank on me by arguing poorly on the internet? They've done that before.

nice try

face it your wrong period you know you are too

[Shavnir]

nice try

face it your wrong period you know you are too

No actually, I'm quite convinced the combination of "all units within 6" and "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." combine to form a situation that allows for the doom to hit embarked troops.

As an aside (this point would be too weak an argument on its own tbh) out of curiosity if being embarked makes you immune to outside effects why did they word the rule to include "to or from the vehicle's hull". If it was only designed to work one way wouldn't they just have to say "from the vehicle's hull."?

[rle68]

No actually, I'm quite convinced the combination of "all units within 6" and "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull." combine to form a situation that allows for the doom to hit embarked troops.

As an aside (this point would be too weak an argument on its own tbh) out of curiosity if being embarked makes you immune to outside effects why did they word the rule to include "to or from the vehicle's hull". If it was only designed to work one way wouldn't they just have to say "from the vehicle's hull."?

where does the affect mention anything about a vehicles hull ? i have read DOM it doesnt mention that as far as i can recall

you measure from the hull for shooting purposes and for aspect of assaulting the vehicle not the unit inside if i was to try to go your direction if im playing space wolves anytime you assault my vehicles i can counterattack from inside then ?

[Jwolf]

Okay, you two behave or get a room in Vegas to act out your forbidden love.

[rle68]

Okay, you two behave or get a room in Vegas to act out your forbidden love.

lol...

[Bean]

Bean

show me the rule and page number right now that says a unit must disembark if they fall a morale check

show me the page it doesnt exist

I didn't say they had to disembark. I said they had to fall back. The rules which can potentially require them to fall back are on page 44. The conundrum these rules pose (the question of what, exactly, that requirement means for an embarked unit) is the point of this thread, and no one, including you, has posited anything which concretely resolves that conundrum.

The problem, really, is that that being embarked doesn't seem to actually prevent the unit from moving.

The other problem is that it's unclear what happens to the models if the unit moves, while they are off the table, from a position which is marked by the transport model to a position which is not.



you measure from the hull for shooting purposes and for aspect of assaulting the vehicle not the unit inside

Again, this is directly contradicted by the rules on page 67, which allow you to measure to or from the embarked unit by measuring to or from its transport's hull for any purpose--not just shooting or assaulting the vehicle.

You'd know this if you'd read either the rules or the thread which discussed these rules at length (in which the rule on page 67 was quoted many times). Again, your apparent illiteracy seems to have you stating things which are factually untrue.

[rle68]

I didn't say they had to disembark. I said they had to fall back. The rules which can potentially require them to fall back are on page 44. The conundrum these rules pose (the question of what, exactly, that requirement means for an embarked unit) is the point of this thread, and no one, including you, has posited anything which concretely resolves that conundrum.

The problem, really, is that that being embarked doesn't seem to actually prevent the unit from moving.

The other problem is that it's unclear what happens to the models if the unit moves, while they are off the table, from a position which is marked by the transport model to a position which is not.




Again, this is directly contradicted by the rules on page 67, which allow you to measure to or from the embarked unit by measuring to or from its transport's hull for any purpose--not just shooting or assaulting the vehicle.

You'd know this if you'd read either the rules or the thread which discussed these rules at length (in which the rule on page 67 was quoted many times). Again, your apparent illiteracy seems to have you stating things which are factually untrue.


Do you just like to see yourself type on here or what?

you have not added anything of fact in any of your posts. i have added everything i say by fact you cannot or will not provide anything to solidify you weak A$$ arguement

you post opinion and no facts

and on page 67 mr idiot i mentioned the only 2 factors that are used by outside sources to affect the vehicle not what the unit uses if you had bothered to read before you opened your yap youd know what was being said instead of spouting more ignorant rants that again dont disprove any thing i have said yet again

so show me a rule that says you can affect a model inside a transport past what page 67 does say and ill listen to you rants till then you lose

so dont even try and sit here and say im lying when you cant provide one shred of proof to validate your own posistion

[Bean]

Here are the facts:

1.) The Spirit Leech affects all enemy, non-vehicle units within 6" of the Doom of Malan'tai (the Doom).
- see page 58, Codex Tyranids: "At the beginning of every Shooting phase, including the foe's, every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6" of the Doom of Malan'tai must take a Leadership test on 3D6. If the test is failed the unit suffers a single wound for each point they failed by, with no armour saves allowed."

2.) An enemy unit embarked in a transport which is within 6" of the Doom is, itself, within 6" of the doom.
- see page 66, BRB: "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

3.) Therefor, Spirit Leech affects enemy non-vehicle units embarked in transports which are within 6" of the Doom.


That is my position, expressed as an argument. It is based on true, factual premises--not opinions. It reasoning is valid--the conclusion comes necessarily and unavoidably from the premises.

Moreover, I have presented these exact facts and reasoning before.

You, rl68, are a liar. You have accused me of failing to present facts when, in fact, I have presented several facts. You have accused me of basing my position on opinions when, in fact, I have not.

I have provided exactly as much evidence as needed to demonstrate that my position is accurate and fully supported by the rules. Again, this evidence is, and always has been, in the form of facts taken directly from the rules of the game.

Beyond the lies you have written about me, you have lied about the contents of the rules themselves.

For instance you have claimed:



you measure from the hull for shooting purposes and for aspect of assaulting the vehicle not the unit inside


This is directly contradicted by the rule on page 66, which I've quoted several times in the past.

At this point, I have little hope of convincing you of your error, but I would ask that you at least stop lying, both about my posts and about what the rules say.

[rle68]

bad rle 68.

[BuFFo]

Jwolf, for God's sake, could you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post a list of forum rules on the top of each forum????

(And make some moderators...) :rolleyes:

This wild west shoot out that is BoLs Lounge is giving me a migraine. Your guests are just trampling all over dignity and respect, and on any other forum, would have been banned a long time ago..... :mad:

[Bean]

No what you are sir is an idiot
you cannot affect a unit in a transport and im done arguing with a self depricating moron who makes assumptions


Well, it's good to see that you're finally admitting there's no substance to your position. If name-calling and more lies about the content of my argument is the best response you have to my position, that basically amounts to an admission of failure on your part.


@ Buffo
Frankly, I almost wouldn't mind being banned, knowing that you would be, too,
(presuming any sort of reasonable forum rules.)

[Lerra]

Imo, this is just a giant hole in the rules. There is no right answer, just the lack of an answer.

If I was writing the rules, I'd add a separate mechanic for failed morale tests for embarked units, maybe something like fearless where they take one wound for each point by which they fail the leadership check, and they are not allowed to disembark on the next turn unless they "regroup". It doesn't make much sense for them to get out of the metal box, or for the tank to turn around and run away, or for the unit to continue on as if nothing happened. The logical middle ground doesn't exist in the printed rulebook, imo.

[Tynskel]

You have not stated you are a judge, so you cannot write opinions. We can only make decisions based upon the logic of the Rulebook, or, failing that, with made up rules agreed upon by both parties.

If you take 25% casualties in a single phase, you have to take a Moral check (p.44). The exception is close combat (p.44)

Units make a fall back move IMMEDIATELY upon failing a Moral test (p.45).

Models can ONLY VOLUNTARILY embark or disembark in the Movement phase, and may NOT VOLUNTARILY both embark and disembark in the same player turn (p.66). All of this implies that units can be forced to disembark.

Disembarking units deploy with in 2" of an access points (p.67). They can do 'emergency disembarkation' anywhere within 2" of the hull (p.67). The unit would disembark in both situations as per to fall back (p.45).

If disembarkation is impossible, they cannot disembark (p.67)- and they are destroyed due to 'Trapped' (p.45).

The Rulebook has solved our problems.

[BuFFo]

@ Buffo
Frankly, I almost wouldn't mind being banned, knowing that you would be, too,
(presuming any sort of reasonable forum rules.)

Nope. The worst I do is post off topic responses to flame baiters like you (like this one).

But hey, every single post in the 40k section has tons of off topic responses... So arrest me for stealing in a city populated by thieves....

[Denzark]

I think Tynskel has it:

1. Can only disemark in movement phase voluntarily.
2. So is emergency disembarkation - as per the rules - with trapped, etc.
3. Then they proceed to fall back as per normal.

The vehicle would carry on advancing (or whatever). The troops poo themselves and dive out of the moving vehicle to save themselves from the threat. Applies equally to plasma gets hot, strange doom, any other cunning things that may effect.

Not convinced that doom would effect - only stating this is how I think unit could fall back from a transport.

@ Buffo your argument reference a city of thieves is amusing, Capt Obvious. Just because you are the first or even only person to get caught doesn't mean you shouldn't have a hand cut off and a 'T' burnt into your forehead.

[Tynskel]

Oi! I poo-ed myself!

[Jwolf]

Jwolf, for God's sake, could you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post a list of forum rules on the top of each forum????

(And make some moderators...) :rolleyes:

This wild west shoot out that is BoLs Lounge is giving me a migraine. Your guests are just trampling all over dignity and respect, and on any other forum, would have been banned a long time ago..... :mad:

There are a bunch of other moderators; reporting the posts makes things go faster with responding to bad behavior.

[BuFFo]

There are a bunch of other moderators; reporting the posts makes things go faster with responding to bad behavior.

That is comforting to know.... :)

Thank you.

[SeattleDV8]

I disagree with the idea that an embarked unit would fall back, the rules on pg. 63 (Vehicles and Morale) talk about the crew being immune to Morale checks and are effected by shaken and stunned instead. Seeing that embarked units are also affected by shaken /stunned while embarked I believe they also are immune to morale tests.
Nothing in the rules are clear one way or the other but the implication is there.

[Tynskel]

I disagree with the idea that an embarked unit would fall back, the rules on pg. 63 (Vehicles and Morale) talk about the crew being immune to Morale checks and are effected by shaken and stunned instead. Seeing that embarked units are also affected by shaken /stunned while embarked I believe they also are immune to morale tests.
Nothing in the rules are clear one way or the other but the implication is there.



IF the rule stated that "Vehicles and Units Embarked are immune to Moral checks..." then that would be the case. However, p. 63 just says "Vehicles never take Morale checks for any reason. It is assumed that in all cases the vehicle's crew has unshakeable faith in their vehicle and their orders. Any occasional lapses that do occur are represented by crew shaken and stunned results on the Damage table."

When you apply damage effects to passengers, it is because the driver said "Get Down! or HOLD ON!" (always with an Austrian Accent- Billy, get to tha choppa!). However, the passengers can always get out, and then resume fire. In this case, they are completely immune to what is going on to the vehicle.

This represents a distinction between the two units. Bullets pining off the armor of the tank don't mean anything to passengers, usually. But when people's heads start exploding (Perils of the Warp), the Plasma Rifle blows up (overheat), or the soul of their buddy is just sucked outta their body- this MAY be cause for alarm! Hence, a moral check.

[AirHorse]

Having managed to read through to the last page in this thread(impressive I know!) I thought I would add my point of view to the argument.

I am in agreement with what Buffo said near the begining of this thread, from what I have read in the rules it seems to me that there isnt anything to prevent a unit from falling back from a transport. The rules about embarking and disembarking dont prevent you from falling back as far as I can see.

I would also like to add that it is a pretty vague area too so can understand that it is a topic of much discussion :P.

[SeattleDV8]

When you apply damage effects to passengers, it is because the driver said "Get Down! or HOLD ON!" (always with an Austrian Accent- Billy, get to tha choppa!). However, the passengers can always get out, and then resume fire. In this case, they are completely immune to what is going on to the vehicle.


Which seems to make my point even stronger. Passengers are treated differently from normal troops.
Once the unit has left the vehicle it goes back to the normal rules.
GW has shown it does not wish to deal with embarked units by making special rules for them, remember the FAQ on psychic powers effecting embarked units " For simplicity’s sake,"
I believe most people are over-thinking this issue.

[Rapture]

People seem to be trying to justify this with rules and fluff at the same time. They don't necessarily go together. Going strictly from a fluff/reality standpoint, why would anyone leave an armored box? Maybe something bad just happened inside, but that same thing and maybe worse are happening on the outside.

[BuFFo]

Having managed to read through to the last page in this thread(impressive I know!) I thought I would add my point of view to the argument.

I am in agreement with what Buffo said near the begining of this thread, from what I have read in the rules it seems to me that there isnt anything to prevent a unit from falling back from a transport. The rules about embarking and disembarking dont prevent you from falling back as far as I can see.

I would also like to add that it is a pretty vague area too so can understand that it is a topic of much discussion :P.

Agreed.

Even though I have my opinion on this matter, I respect hobbyists with a conflicting opinion on this, and I would talk about it before the game if this issue was a serious enough one to resolve before hand...

40k is about fun!