Flat out = dead passengers

[Son_of_Osiris]

Just came up.

pg. 70 2nd column bottom section FAST TRANSPORT VEHICLES

Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in the movement phase.

pg. 67 2nd Column ---- Effects of Damage Results on Passengers under destroyed - wrecked

The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a Pinning test. Any models that CANNOT disembark are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

Cant disembark from a vehicle that went flat out and this means the wreck kills them.

What'd you all think about this?

[Bavius]

Just came up.

pg. 70 2nd column bottom section FAST TRANSPORT VEHICLES

Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in the movement phase.

If you manage to destroy your own fast transport in your own movement phase it might be an issue. Otherwise, it only applies to the movement phase.

[Son_of_Osiris]

thats what I thought. You can see how it would be open to how you interpret this though right?

[Force21]

I think...emergency disembarkation overrules saying when a vehicle becomes a wreck...

there is a emergency disembarkation...Pinning Test..all that stuff...

[synack]

If you manage to destroy your own fast transport in your own movement phase it might be an issue. Otherwise, it only applies to the movement phase.

No where does it state that it the the rule ONLY applies in the movement phase. It says, "flat out in the movement phase."

Let me put it this way.

In his shooting phase, he still moved flat out in in his movement phase.
In his assault phase, he still moved flat out in his movement phase.
In his opponents movement phase, he still moved flat out in his movement phase.
In his opponents shooting phase, he still moved flat out in his movement phase.
In his opponents assault phase, he still moved flat out in his movement phase.

So yes, you wouldn't be able to normally disembark from a transport that has moved flat out if it got wrecked. You'd probably have to use the emrgency disembarkment rules I think, but I don't have the BRB in front of me.

[Bavius]

No where does it state that it the the rule ONLY applies in the movement phase. It says, "flat out in the movement phase."

Let me put it this way.

In his shooting phase, he still moved flat out in in his movement phase.
In his assault phase, he still moved flat out in his movement phase.
In his opponents movement phase, he still moved flat out in his movement phase.
In his opponents shooting phase, he still moved flat out in his movement phase.
In his opponents assault phase, he still moved flat out in his movement phase.

So yes, you wouldn't be able to normally disembark from a transport that has moved flat out if it got wrecked. You'd probably have to use the emrgency disembarkment rules I think, but I don't have the BRB in front of me.

True, but he isn't ever disembarking. He would then be conducting an emergency disembark. Which - if we really want to play this game, settles it rather firmly.

The thing I dislike about this logic is that you don't disembark in any other phase. If for some reason the vehicle is wrecked and you can't disembark because of flat out (I'll give you this) you can still perform an emergency disembark which it does not forbid.

[BuFFo]

True, but he isn't ever disembarking. He would then be conducting an emergency disembark. Which - if we really want to play this game, settles it rather firmly.

Pwned.

[synack]

The thing I dislike about this logic is that you don't disembark in any other phase. If for some reason the vehicle is wrecked and you can't disembark because of flat out (I'll give you this) you can still perform an emergency disembark which it does not forbid.

You can't voluntarilly disembark, but you can forced to disembark by wrecking the vechile. If the vechile hasn't moved flat out, then they would disembark normally. If it has, they have to use the emergency disembarkment rules, as I said.

[Bavius]

You can't voluntarilly disembark, but you can forced to disembark by wrecking the vechile. If the vechile hasn't moved flat out, then they would disembark normally. If it has, they have to use the emergency disembarkment rules, as I said.

I'm agreeing with you.

[synack]

I'm agreeing with you.

Sorry, sounded like you weren't. My bad.

[addamsfamily36]

The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a Pinning test. Any models that CANNOT disembark are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

This is incase an enemy unit has destroyed the vehicle and has blocked all exits.

[mathhammer]

Emergency disembarkation is still diembarkation, even has the word disembark in it, Shows up under the disembark rules and is a disembark,

They can't disembark, (ergo rhino going fast) they die.

[addamsfamily36]

I haven't got a rulebook to check emergency disembark rules.

But how stupid would it be to have an armor 11 rhino move flat out only to get blown up with 10 models inside die? if thats how the rules work then Taking a rhino is pointless in the new BA rules.

[EnglishInquisition]

I think this comes down to the initial embark/disembark being a voluntary move, which is not allowed if the vehicle is going to/has moved flat out. If it then gets wrecked, the "disembark" is a forced action so allowed. A pinning test is then made. If the exits are blocked, then an emergency disembark is made.

[synack]

I think this comes down to the initial embark/disembark being a voluntary move, which is not allowed if the vehicle is going to/has moved flat out. If it then gets wrecked, the "disembark" is a forced action so allowed. A pinning test is then made. If the exits are blocked, then an emergency disembark is made.

The problem is, it doesn't state that. It just says if you move flat out, the units can't disembark.

I'm gonna go read the rules myself, but it is actually sound like that emergency disembark is off the table too.

[addamsfamily36]

Right, ive been browsing a few other websites for a similar topic and came across this:


On page 70 of the BRB it states:

Quote:
Passengers may not embark or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase.


The only time a unit can be instantly destroyed due to their transport being wrecked after moving too fast is if their skimmer failed a dangerous terrain test or if their transport was wrecked with a 'Death or Glory' attack.

I think this guy has it spot on. The entry says in that movement phase, anythign after that is not in that movement phase, so not being able to disembark doesn't apply.

thoughts?

[mathhammer]

Right, ive been browsing a few other websites for a similar topic and came across this:


I think this guy has it spot on. The entry says in that movement phase, anythign after that is not in that movement phase, so not being able to disembark doesn't apply.

thoughts?

Then I can hit it automatically in hand to hand and skimmers/bikes give up their cover save?

sorry the 18" move effect last till the start of that models turn. You can't turn it off selectively. And only rhinos and razorbacks have this issue as the stormraven has a special rule to disembark.

[Bavius]

Emergency disembarkation is still diembarkation, even has the word disembark in it, Shows up under the disembark rules and is a disembark,

They can't disembark, (ergo rhino going fast) they die.

Correct, it is a disembark and is listed under disembarking, page 67. It is, however, not disembarking. It is 'emergency disembarkation' and occurs in any instance in which a unit cannot normally disembark. Which the fast moving vehicle, that is wrecked or destroyed, falls under. It states clearly that the only way you would lose your models is if there was no room for a model to be placed outside of the hull and outside of 1" of any enemy.

I can see where the argument for destroying these models inside a transport is coming from, but it is covered in the rules.

[addamsfamily36]

Quote:
Originally Posted by addamsfamily36
Right, ive been browsing a few other websites for a similar topic and came across this:


I think this guy has it spot on. The entry says in that movement phase, anythign after that is not in that movement phase, so not being able to disembark doesn't apply.

thoughts?
Then I can hit it automatically in hand to hand and skimmers/bikes give up their cover save?

sorry the 18" move effect last till the start of that models turn. You can't turn it off selectively. And only rhinos and razorbacks have this issue as the stormraven has a special rule to disembark.


The prevention on disembarking is only during the movement phase.

Moving 18 inches disembarking and unloading rapid firing boltguns for instance would just be insane !

The rules for hitting a skimmer or vehicle that moved flat out are still in effect, but if destroyed the unit inside can disembark. Its not a case of being selective, it clearly states" in that movement phase". After that movement phase disembarking returns to normal. Other wise it would state:

"If the unit moved flat out, the unit may not disembark until the controlling players next turn."

In the thread that i originally posted from, pretty much everyone came to the same conclusion, that Rules as written clearly states in that movement phase. If its your opponents turn its hardly that movement phase still is it?

[sorienor]

As a side note, none of this applies to Ork Trukks as the ramshackle table completely replaces all the rules in the BRB for vehicle destroyed/explodes results.

But ya, moving flat out only prevents voluntary disembarking in the same movement phase.

[Kieranator K82]

As a side note, none of this applies to Ork Trukks as the ramshackle table completely replaces all the rules in the BRB for vehicle destroyed/explodes results.


Superior Ork technology for the win! Waaagh!

[ashnaile]

Then I can hit it automatically in hand to hand and skimmers/bikes give up their cover save?

sorry the 18" move effect last till the start of that models turn. You can't turn it off selectively. And only rhinos and razorbacks have this issue as the stormraven has a special rule to disembark.

No, none of what you said is true, both of those rules are worded differently than the prohibition against disembarkation.

pg 63 Under rolling to hit against vehicles.

Attacking a vehicle that moved at combat speed In it's previous turn. 4+
Attacking a vehicle that moved at cruising speed In it's previous turn. 6+

pg 76, turbo boost USR

"... In the following enemy shooting phase, the bike benefits from a cover save of 3+ ..."

and finally Pg 70. Fast transport vehicles

"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."

So you move your fast rhino 18" finish your movement shoot do assaults
its now enemys movement phase. They go about as normal
Now they destroy your rhino that moved flat out, you now check if it moved flatout "THAT" movement phase.

Which i dont know about you, but i have an awfully hard time moving in my opponents movement phase.

[addamsfamily36]

Which i dont know about you, but i have an awfully hard time moving in my opponents movement phase.

:D LOL i posted something similar earlier, but your Quote is much better :) You just made my day lol *high five my friend thats the quote of the day for me*

[DarkLink]

BRB pg 66: Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, and may not voluntarily both embark and disembark in the same player turn. However they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed.

From this, we clarify that any time a unit gets in or out of a vehicle, including if the vehicle is destroyed, the unit counts as embarking/disembarking. Thus, if a vehicle is destroyed (for any reason), the unit inside disembarks. Even if that disembarkation does not take place in the movement phase.



BRB pg 70: Passengers may not embark or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in the movement phase.

From this, it is clear that if a vehicle that moved flat out is destroyed, the models inside are not allowed to disembark, as getting out of a destroyed vehicle counts as disembarkation (even though it is not in the movement phase). This is very clearly stated in the first quote.


BRB pg 71:...so a skimmer that is immobilized immediately crashed and is destroyed (wrecked) if it moved flat out in its last turn.


BRB pg 67: Destroyed-Wrecked: Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed.

From the pg 71 quote, we establish that a skimmer that moved flat out and is subsequently immobilized suffers a Destroyed - wrecked result.

From the Destroyed - wrecked result, we establish the following; since no models are allowed to disembark, as very clearly established in the first two quotes, the entire unit is destroyed.



BRB pg 67: If any models cannot disembark because of enemies or because they would end up in impassable terrain, the unit can perform an emergency disembarkation... If even this disembarkation is impossible, they can't disembark.

So emergency disembarkation only protects against enemies or impassable terrain blocking the exits, not against any other rule preventing disembarkation. Thus, it offers no protection whatsoever to a unit that is embarked inside a transport that moved flat out, because the action of moving flat out prevents disembarkation at any time regardless of the presence of enemies or impassable terrain.






Thus, it is absolutely crystal clear that a unit is destroyed if their fast skimmer is immobilized/destroyed after moving flat out.

[ashnaile]

You are correct, if you ram a vehicle and wreck or go a skimmer that goes flat out and fail a difficult terrain everyone inside dies.

But thats only because thats happening in THAT movement phase.

Once your turn ends and your opponent has taken a movement phase it is no longer the movement phase in which the vehicle moved flatout, thus everyone inside cqan happily disembark on a wrecked result.

[DarkLink]

No, they still die. The rules are clearly laid out, and I can't see any wiggle room whatsoever.

A vehicle that moved flat out has still moved flat out during the opponent's turn. If that vehicle is destroyed, then the passengers are destroyed. Even if it is destroyed in the opponents turn.

[Melissia]

So that means if your opponent presents a very high risk of your transports being destroyed, you'd want them to move only twelve inches, yes?

[addamsfamily36]

Quote:
BRB pg 70: Passengers may not embark or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in the movement phase.

Is this the exact entry in the rulebook?

[ashnaile]

No, the exact entry is

BRB pg 70: Passengers may not embark or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in THAT movement phase.

Which means unless you can move flat out in your opponents movement phase or wreck inside of your own your not killed.

Sorry dark link but you need to look at the stuff you quoted, it clearly contradicts what your point is ...

[Melissia]

Actually ashnaile's right...

[Tynskel]

It is quite difficult to destroy an embarked unit after destroying the transport.

even if you block the exits, they still have emergency disembark

even if you are within 1" of the hull, you can still place the models on top of the wrecked vehicle. (p.62, 67)

[Melissia]

That's nice, but it's not the topic of the thread.

[Maturin]

No, the exact entry is

BRB pg 70: Passengers may not embark or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in THAT movement phase.

Which means unless you can move flat out in your opponents movement phase or wreck inside of your own your not killed.

Sorry dark link but you need to look at the stuff you quoted, it clearly contradicts what your point is ...


The grammar is confusing here. As we all know, the English language is often very imprecise, and GW rules are not written to this level of specificity. But if we want to break down the exact sentence structure, then the clause in question, "in that movement phase" is actually an adverbial phrase which modifies the phrase "if it has moved flat out" only.

Since the context of the paragraph refers primarily to rules about vehicles moving, it is logical that they make a reference to the movement phase in which a vehicle moves - after all, it's the only time (usually) they are allowed to move.

If they had intended the phrase "in that movement phase" to apply to embarking/disembarking, then the rule should read: "Passengers may not embark or disembark in that movement phase from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out."

Since they did NOT write it this way, then the correct way to read the phrase is that the writers are referring to a vehicles' movement in this phase, and that the embarkation/disembarkation effects last as usual until the next turn. So moving fast + immobilized = dead passengers. No emergency disembarkation. Which makes sense logically, too. Valkyrie skimming along fast + engine flameout = passengers spread in a thin paste across the landscape. ;)

[Tynskel]

That's nice, but it's not the topic of the thread.

very much related-- a flat out skimmer's embarked troops can only be destroyed if the vehicle crashes while moving. (p. 67, 71)

More likely, the skimmer is shot down, in the opponent's shooting phase. This means the troops do an emergency disembark--- and I was just demonstrating in my previous post how difficult it is to destroy troops through emergency disembark.

[DarkLink]

No, the exact entry is

BRB pg 70: Passengers may not embark or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in THAT movement phase.

Which means unless you can move flat out in your opponents movement phase or wreck inside of your own your not killed.

Sorry dark link but you need to look at the stuff you quoted, it clearly contradicts what your point is ...

Hmm, the "that" is an odd choice of words on GW's part. The "that" implies that the embark/disembark takes place only in the movement phase, which it doesn't necessarily. That is a little less clear.

However, I would argue that, since the vehicle movement carries over into subsequent phases, including the opposing players turn, the vehicle counts as moving flat out. I, however, don't have time at the moment to go into any detail, so I'll probably have to wait a day or two before I can really look into that, though. Lab reports and homework supersede internet arguments.

[Melissia]

Darklink, I prefer to interpret it this way:

BRB pg 70: Passengers may not embark or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in THAT movement phase.
However, it MAY disembark from a fast vehicle going flat out in the opponent's shooting phase, because of it being destroyed.

I don't use fast transports in any of my armies, by the way, so this has no bearing on me, mostly just on my opponents.

[Tynskel]

Hmm, the "that" is an odd choice of words on GW's part. The "that" implies that the embark/disembark takes place only in the movement phase, which it doesn't necessarily. That is a little less clear.

However, I would argue that, since the vehicle movement carries over into subsequent phases, including the opposing players turn, the vehicle counts as moving flat out. I, however, don't have time at the moment to go into any detail, so I'll probably have to wait a day or two before I can really look into that, though. Lab reports and homework supersede internet arguments.

NoooOooooOooOOOoooo!

The Internets are more important!!!


The Rulebook basically doesn't let a player lose 2 units (or more if you include characters) from one shot.

look, for example, at assaulting vehicles-- if the vehicle was immobilized, the vehicle no longer counts as moving, and hits are automatic. This is even if the vehicle moved flat out. p.63

as for 'that'-- you can only voluntarily disembark during the movement phase--- all references to disembarking during movement. p.67, 70
The only reference to disembarking that does not occur during movement is when the vehicle is wrecked from damage. p. 67-- there is no mention of speed.

Essentially, there are only 2 different parts of the book where you will lose a the transport and the embarked unit---- they are both due to reckless use of the owning players units:

1) Moving a Flat Out Skimmer in to terrain, forcing a dangerous terrain check, and failing-- since this is during the movement phase that the skimmer was moving, the models cannot disembark, and are destroyed. p.67, 71

2) Deep Strike Mishap- p.94, 95 The group is rolled as one reserve roll, and subsequently, are removed as entire mishap.

Both of these situations occur due to the Player trying to do something they realllllllly should not do. Moving 'Flat Out' into a terrain feature is dumb for Skimmers. 1/6 chance of destroying yourself!

Deep Striking your transport in a position where a Mishap can occur!

Both are dangerous ideas-
Don't Deep Strike your Stormraven/Land Raider, unless you are sure you will not Mishap!!!!!!

[ashnaile]

Another way to pop the unit and transport is wrecking on a flatout ram.

But being shot by the enemy and wrecked in their turn following your flatout move wont prevent disembarkation unless models physically cant be placed within 2" of access points and emergency disembarkation is also prevented by the situation ...

[Tynskel]

Another way to pop the unit and transport is wrecking on a flatout ram.

But being shot by the enemy and wrecked in their turn following your flatout move wont prevent disembarkation unless models physically cant be placed within 2" of access points and emergency disembarkation is also prevented by the situation ...

In this case, only Eldar--- sneaky Eldar, can suicide their embarked units by ramming!


Once again, this is a reckless move on the part of the owning player!

[Maturin]

I believe Darklink is correct in his analysis here. Here are the relevant quotes in their entirety:

1) 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. (p.70)



(This is my point from earlier - As currently written, the adverbial clause 'in that movement phase' cannot modify both the verbs 'move' AND 'disembark'. You must choose one. To put it another way, think about this sentence reading "If it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in the Movement phase, passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle." )

2) ...so a skimmer that is immobilised immediately crashes and is destroyed (wreched) if it moved flat out in its last turn. (p.71)

3) Effects of damage results on passengers: Destroyed - wrecked. The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed. (p.67)

Note that any models that cannot disembark are destroyed. And see point 1: Passengers may not disembark from a fast vehicle if it moved flat out. Therefore, they are destroyed.

Emergency disembark does not apply here either.:

4) If any models cannot disembark because of enemies or because they would end up in impassable terrain, the unit can perform an 'emergency disembarkation' - the models are deployed anywhere within 2" of the vehicle's hull... (p.67)

The conditions which must exist to emergency disembark do not apply to our situation here. They are simply not allowed to disembark.

I wish this wasn't so - I play airmobile guard, so it really hurts. But that's the way I read the rules...

Interestingly, if the fast vehicle explodes, the unit survives, as there is no mention of disembarking in that situation. Go figure. I'd still count my guys as dead though.

[addamsfamily36]

1) 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. (p.70)

I'm surprised that this thread is still in discussion:confused:

Passengers (i.e a unit inside a transport or one wishing to get on it) may NOT embark (get on) or disembark(get out/off) from a fast vehicle if ii has moved (meaning it has already moved that turn) or is going to move (i.e plans to move flat out during that turn) flat out in THAT movement phase.


Highlighted in red are the important parts of the rule.

so passengers, can;t embark or disembark a vehicle that has moved or is going to move flat out in that movement phase. the phase ends and its the shooting phase you can't move any more models in this phase so yup no moving your models out of tanks, assault phase well you cant assault out of a vehicle without disembarking it first. turn ends. now its the opponents turn, their movement phase, their shooting phase say they blow up your tank lets see, have i moved flat out in That movement phase? no seeing as its someone else's shooting phase so i get out. same applies to the same result created from cobat. whats not to get?

I don't see how there can be any other interpretation of the rule. You can still be in One phase when your in another?


Apologies if it sounds like im targeting or having a go, i promise i'm not, but i'm struggling to see why "in that movement phase" doesnt mean in that movement phase and seems to apply for the rest of your turn and the apposing players turn. otherwise it would say effects last until your next turn etc.

[Maturin]

You'll have to forgive me as well for sounding like a broken record, but this is the exact point I think most everyone's missing. "...in THAT movement phase" is talking about the vehicle moving, not the embark/disembark. You are taking the sentence as a whole, when there are actually two parts to it. There's an IF part, and a THEN part. The "in that movement phase" lies in the IF part.

IF a vehicle has moved flat out (in that movement phase - presumably added for emphasis), THEN passengers may not embark or disembark.

Again, if the writers had meant for the restriction to apply to the embarking/disembarking, they would have written: "Passengers may not embark or disembark in THAT movement phase, if the vehicle has moved flat out."


Seems pretty clear to me, from the other side. Am I the only one who sees the grammatical inconsistency here?

[addamsfamily36]

Seems pretty clear to me, from the other side. Am I the only one who sees the grammatical inconsistency here?


nope i see it too.

Its to restrict Units from embarking onto or from vehicle that has moved or going to move flat out in That movement phase.

Otherwise you would have flat out moving death armies. for example 6 fire dragons in a falcon moves flat out disembarks and melta's anything in range! that would just be insane !

[Maturin]

Reading the way I'm reading it does not allow disembarking after flat out movement either. It's a more restrictive reading of the rule.

If a falcon has moved flat out in the movement phase, the fire dragons may not embark or disembark.

At any time during the turn - or the opponent's turn (my emphasis).

[addamsfamily36]

Reading the way I'm reading it does not allow disembarking after flat out movement either. It's a more restrictive reading of the rule.

If a falcon has moved flat out in the movement phase, the fire dragons may not embark or disembark.

At any time during the turn - or the opponent's turn (my emphasis).

Slightly confused now lol :confused:

Ignore the eldar reference as that was an example of Why the rule is in place, to stop people being able to disembark after moving flat out in the same movement phase.

But are you saying, you can't disembark after that movement phase either?

[ashnaile]

Yes that wasnt very clear maturin

However a vehicles passengers that have moved flatout in their movement phase may still disembark on a wrecked result in the opponents shooting phase.

The only times this is an issue is a wrecked result on a flat out ram, failed dt test on a skimmer that moved faltout, or total impossibility of legal normal or emergency disembarkation.

[addamsfamily36]

Yes that wasnt very clear maturin

However a vehicles passengers that have moved flatout in their movement phase may still disembark on a wrecked result in the opponents shooting phase.

The only times this is an issue is a wrecked result on a flat out ram, failed dt test on a skimmer that moved faltout, or total impossibility of legal normal or emergency disembarkation.


Yup totally agree

[Melissia]

At any time during the turn - or the opponent's turn (my emphasis).
Your emphasis, and your house rule which disagrees with the RAW, which states "in that movement phase".

Units normally willingly disembark or embark in their movement phase. Moving Flat Out makes you unable to do this. The rule, however says [b]nothing[/b\ about disembarking or embarking in later phases. You can be forced to leave a transport because of the transport blowing up in the shooting phase; this rule does not prevent you from doing so.

[Maturin]

Yes that wasnt very clear maturin

However a vehicles passengers that have moved flatout in their movement phase may still disembark on a wrecked result in the opponents shooting phase.

The only times this is an issue is a wrecked result on a flat out ram, failed dt test on a skimmer that moved faltout, or total impossibility of legal normal or emergency disembarkation.


I'll clarify then. The way I'm reading the rule, there is no restriction on the prohibition on embarking/disembarking to the movement phase alone. If you have moved flat out, you may not embark/disembark.

Since there's no qualifier to that part of the sentence, I must assume that it's true until the next movement phase. As previously posted, when you fire - you refer back to your movement phase. When your opponent rolls to hit a vehicle in assault - you refer back to your movement phase. It follows the general logic of the rulebook. It's a slightly special case because the embarking/disembarking is one of the few opportunities to take an action out of its usual phase. But there's nothing in that sentence that would lead me to believe that the prohibition on embarking/disembarking applies to the movement phase alone.

I would agree with you if the rule read "In that movement phase, you may not embark/disembark if the vehicle moved flat out." But it doesn't.

I've cited my sources, the exact rules, and my reasoning (and why emergency disembarkation isn't legal in this situation either). Could you be more specific in your rebuttal?

[Maturin]

Your emphasis, and your house rule which disagrees with the RAW, which states "in that movement phase".

Units normally willingly disembark or embark in their movement phase. Moving Flat Out makes you unable to do this. The rule, however says [b]nothing[/b\ about disembarking or embarking in later phases. You can be forced to leave a transport because of the transport blowing up in the shooting phase; this rule does not prevent you from doing so.

I don't see how the rule doesn't prevent you from doing so when it states, very clearly: Passengers may not embark or disembark if the vehicle has moved flat out. No temporal restriction on the embarking or disembarking (remember, the reference is to the vehicle moving) - so I must assume, as with the rest of the rules, that it applies the whole turn. Can you cite another rule where you're not allowed to do something, but simply because the rule doesn't specifically say you can't do it in another phase you're allowed to?

Again, I'm pointing out that the sentence structure, and everyday rules of grammar, make "in that movement phase" inapplicable to the embarking/disembarking. It is RAW as I see it. You've got the house rule. ;)

Please see the the hypothetical sentences I've written above the writers could have used if they wanted the rule to play the way you see it. They didn't write it that way.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree since the sticking point seems to be whether the ruleset is permissive or restrictive. Ah well - it was fun discussing this. :)

[Melissia]

I don't see how the rule doesn't prevent you from doing so when it states, very clearly: Passengers may not embark or disembark if the vehicle has moved flat out. No temporal restriction

Except for the "in that phase" part. Which is a temporal restriction to the rule that they cannot disembark after moving flat out. Unless the forced disembarking takes place in the movement phase you went flat out in, flat out does not effect it.

Furthermore, logically speaking I don't have to prove it DOESN'T prevent it from happening in the first place. This rule is the exception to how things normally function, therefor you have to prove it DOES effect emergency disembarking as well as normal disembarking. You have yet to do so; you can try and argue some obscure and awkward method of interpreting the sentence, yes, but that's rules lawyering at its worst and it does not please me to be sure.

[Maturin]

Except for the "in that phase" part. Which is a temporal restriction to the rule that they cannot disembark after moving flat out. Unless the forced disembarking takes place in the movement phase you went flat out in, flat out does not effect it.

Furthermore, logically speaking I don't have to prove it DOESN'T prevent it from happening in the first place. This rule is the exception to how things normally function, therefor you have to prove it DOES effect emergency disembarking as well as normal disembarking. You have yet to do so; you can try and argue some obscure and awkward method of interpreting the sentence, yes, but that's rules lawyering at its worst and it does not please me to be sure.

Excuse me? Obscure and awkward? I'm using the rules of normal English grammar! Look them up - you'll see I'm right. Look at this sentence: "I will take a photo of you if you run around the block in the nude". Does it mean that I'm going to be nude as I take the photo of you running around the block? Of course not! Yet that's exactly what you're arguing here.

Rules lawyering usually implies that you're arguing against fluff and for your own benefit. Let's see - the transport is going soooooo fast that when its engines are knocked out (immobilized) it crashes and burns. But oh - the passengers inside are fine and dandy, yup, no problem. Doesn't it make more sense that they're wiped out as well? And as I mentioned - interpreting the rule this way actually hurts my chances, as I have 3 valk/vendettas in my army - and that's it for vehicles. I'd have to say that I'm the last person you should be accusing so huffily of rules lawyering.

*deep breath*

Ok, let's take a look at p.70, 2 sections before the "embark/disembark" rule, in the section entitled "Fast Vehicles Firing". The second sentence states "Fast vehicles that move at combat speed may fire all of their weapons, just like other types of vehicles that have remained stationary." The third states "Fast vehicles that move at cruising speed may fire a single weapon."

There's no mention of movement phases, or shooting phases. It's just common sense when you apply these rules. So let's apply common sense to ours. A vehicle holds its "status" of having moved fast throughout its whole turn, and through the opponents as well. Isn't it just a little bit rules-lawyerish to say that your passengers can disembark in this one particular situation, even though they can't do it at all when they would normally do it (ie in their movement phase)?

[Melissia]

Which set of "proper English grammar"rules do you want me to look up? :P


And it's not rules lawyerish. Transports are intended to protect the passengers, not destroy them, it flat out states that in the rulebook in the opening paragraph about transports. Technically speaking if you want to go with fluff, a lascannon penetrating a vehicle should be able to kill models inside with the same shot whether it does any real damage or not, and let's not even get into wound assignments, or taking turns, or...

But there are certain facts about transports. One of them is that, with rare exception, transports protect the passengers. This rule is not worded in such a way to contradict this unless you attempt to use an awkward (And that is what it is to me) grammatical interpretation, so I go with the interpretation that's easier to understand and appears to align with the intent of the rules.

[Maturin]

Which set of "proper English grammar"rules do you want me to look up? :P


And it's not rules lawyerish. Transports are intended to protect the passengers, not destroy them, it flat out states that in the rulebook. Technically speaking if you want to go with fluff, a lascannon penetrating a vehicle should be able to kill models inside with the same shot whether it does any real damage or not, and let's not even get into wound assignments...

Touche, Melissa. ;)

True, I realize that 40k is the furthest thing from a "realistic" simulation. I guess I just didn't appreciate being called a rules lawyer - I don't usually consider myself one. Sorry I got huffy there myself.

I guess I see the whole destroyed-with-passengers thing as a risk of going too fast. You have the capability, sure - but use it wisely, because it can get you in trouble. It makes me rather more cautious about zooming my valks across the table in the face of enemy fire.

I still like my example sentence though. Anyone want to argue that I'm taking photos in the nude? :)

[Melissia]

I don't, because it's not applicable. The sentence you provided and the sentence you're comparing it to are dramatically different in format to me.

[Maturin]

How so? They're both if...then statements, with a modifier in the "if" section.

You're taking a modifier in the "if" section, and applying it to the "then" section. A grammatical stretch, at best.

If they meant to apply the rule as you seem to think it should be applied, they would have written "In that movement phase, passengers may not embark or disembark if the vehicle moved fast".

[Melissia]

Perhaps I should make it more clear: I say that because context is key to the English language, and your interpretation does not fit the context of the statement in my mind. If you want to take a truly literal interpretation of this statement using the logic you provide to the logical extreme...

Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in the movement phase.
... then technically speaking this statement would mean that passengers can never disembark from a fast transport after it's moved Flat Out. After all, it says "[they] may not embark [..] or disembark if the vehicle has moved [...] flat out", and does not provide a statement of when they can disembark afterwards. You're assuming that they would be able to disembark the next turn, but you aren't providing any proof of such an assumption. Why would they be able to disembark on the next turn, but not the next phase? Your interpretation has no answer to this, your decision on the matter is arbitrary.

Very bad logic indeed, from your interpretation. Mine has no such logical problems, and so I find it far more preferable.

[Maturin]

Perhaps I should make it more clear: I say that because context is key to the English language, and your interpretation does not fit the context of the statement in my mind. If you want to take a truly literal interpretation of this statement using the logic you provide to the logical extreme...

... then technically speaking this statement would mean that passengers can never disembark from a fast transport after it's moved Flat Out. After all, it says "[they] may not embark [..] or disembark if the vehicle has moved [...] flat out", and does not provide a statement of when they can disembark afterwards. You're assuming that they would be able to disembark the next turn, but you aren't providing any proof of such an assumption.

Very bad logic indeed, from your interpretation. Mine has no such logical problems.

I suspect we're both guilty of entering this discussion with preconceived notions of how it "should" be.

I agree - context is key. Taken out of context, statements can be reduced to nonsense, as you have shown. This is why I pointed out the previous paragraph - "Fast vehicles that move at combat speed may fire all of their weapons, just like other types of vehicles that have remained stationary." Again, if we apply your extreme logic then even this statement becomes absurd. Yet this is a quote taken directly from the rulebook, with which no one has a beef.

My context is this: the unit has moved so fast that passengers cannot get out or get in. It's moving so fast that it gets a 4+ cover save in the enemy's shooting phase. It's moving so fast that if it loses its engines, the vehicle crashes and burns. Why would the passengers be allowed to disembark now, when the vehicle's status that gave it a cover save, and prevented them from disembarking earlier still exists?

[Melissia]

Because they aren't disembarking, they're Emergency Disembarking. That is to say, the passengers are thrown from the vehicle as it skids across the landscape, or when it explodes, rather than leaving in an orderly fashion. IIRC, this kind of disembarking requires a pinning check and causes wounds, but that might only apply to the exploding variety.

[DarkLink]

NoooOooooOooOOOoooo!

The Internets are more important!!!


No, it's cool. I won a 40k tournament while I was busy, too. Got a board game as a prize:D.




Anyways, I still haven't had time to really read into the rule book, but pretty much everything hinges on the "that movement phase".

If "that movement phase" means the controlling player's preceding movement phase, then the passengers are killed.

If it means any movement phase, without regard to the controlling player's preceding movement phase, then they are not killed.

[Maturin]

No, the rules quite clearly state that "The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed."

There is no mention of Emergency Disembark - that only comes into effect when "...models cannot disembark because of enemies or because they would end up in impassable terrain..."

It counts as a normal disembark followed by a pinning test.

Edit: Emergency Disembark is still a type of disembarkation as well - the following sentence states "If even this disembarkation is impossible, they can't disembark." But that's a whole another can of worms. ;)

[Melissia]

Regardless, there's still fewer logical problems with the rule if you use the interpretation of "in that movement phase" to make the statement apply only to that movement phase, as it seems to have been intended, rather than some awkward attempt to make it apply to an entire turn. Basically, if it doesn't apply just to that single phase, then it applies for the entire game, because there is no statement about when it stops applying. Your statement of it applying for an entire turn is completely arbitrary-- you just happened to decide it applies to a game turn, but that's not mentioned in the rules... the rule does not mention, literally or in context, a player turn or game turn. The rule mentions only "phase", and in this case, just the movement phase.

[Maturin]

Regardless, there's still fewer logical problems with the rule if you use the interpretation of "in that movement phase" to make the statement apply only to that movement phase, as it seems to have been intended, rather than some awkward attempt to make it apply to an entire turn. Basically, if it doesn't apply just to that single phase, then it applies for the entire game, because there is no statement about when it stops applying. Your statement of it applying for an entire turn is completely arbitrary-- you just happened to decide it applies to a game turn, but that's not mentioned in the rules... the rule does not mention, literally or in context, a player turn or game turn. The rule mentions only "phase", and in this case, just the movement phase.

I think you're arguing against yourself here, Melissa. You yourself stated that all rules need context - to apply them without context is silly. Now you're suggesting doing exactly that?

There is no logical problem with the rule as I see it, if you simply apply the same common sense that you use in the rest of the rulebook. As I pointed out before (yet again) - on the same page, there are rules which read "Fast vehicles that move at combat speed may fire all of their weapons, just like other types of vehicles that have remained stationary." If you read this as you suggest - then fast vehicles could fire all their weapons the entire game as long as they moved at combat speed on turn one! There is no mention of the duration of the effect. As you put it "...the rule does not mention, literally or in context, a player turn or game turn." Heck, the rule doesn't even mention a phase!

The answer is common sense of course. We play in turns and phases. Effects last for a turn. "Moving fast" status lasts for a turn. Therefore so should the prohibition on embarking or disembarking, since it's not otherwise specified (ok, I'll throw in a "as I read it" here). Plain and simple.

I think we'll have to leave it at agreeing to disagree, since we obviously can't get each other to agree on the correct application of "in that movement phase".....or "in the nude."

:P

[Melissia]

No, I'm not suggesting to not use context. I'm saying that there is a context, but you are just ignoring it by trying to claim that the "in that movement phase" doesn't apply as it should. By the way, do not attempt to argue "common sense" or I will laugh at your face. To me, your argument flies in the face of "common sense".

[Maturin]

No, I'm not suggesting to not use context. I'm saying that there is a context, but you are just ignoring it by trying to claim that the "in that movement phase" doesn't apply as it should. By the way, do not attempt to argue "common sense" or I will laugh at your face. To me, your argument flies in the face of "common sense".

Doesn't apply as it should? You're ignoring the rules of grammar! What is there that's so difficult to understand about this? "...in the movement phase" is located in the "if" section of the sentence. As in, if the vehicle moved flat out.

It's not in the "then" section....which is about embarking/disembarking. So no relevance there.

It's not at the beginning of the sentence, where it would apply to both phrases. No relevance there either.

There. It's simple. It's not awkward. It simply doesn't work the way you think it should. Don't pooh-pooh it only because it doesn't fit your preconceptions.

You simply can't take a part of a phrase and declare that it applies to the whole sentence. Ignoring grammar to interpret rules as you see fit, is the very definition of rules lawyering.

Would you care to explain why my argument flies in the face of common sense? I think it happens to be very logical.

[Melissia]

I'm not ignoring the rules of grammar, so much as I am using the interpretation that makes more sense to me.

"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."

I note that this statement is the ENTIRE section on fast transports. I once again posit to you that, taking your argument to the logical extreme, this statement can be used to prevent units from disembarking for the entire game if they move at Flat Out speed even once in it. There is no statement of how long this lasts, therefor if you want to arbitrarily make it last one game turn (why not have it last one player turn? why not one phase?), I could arbitrarily make it last the entire game.

This, also, is why it flies in the face of common sense to me. You will note that neither of us will agree on the nature of common sense. Transports are supposed to protect their passengers, not endanger them; "[Transports] carry infantry across the battlefield,providing speed and protection.", from the rulebook's first sentence on transports. While there are still risks involved in using transports (deep striking with them, most notably, but also the explosion risk), generally just moving around with a transport isn't going to wind up with them getting killed barring some ridiculously bad armor save rolls. Interpreting a rule in such a way as to make the transport deadlier to the passengers than just walking around is silly.

[Bean]

Your argument is off, Maturin, application of the word "that" is simply wrong. Before we get into exactly why this is the case, let me say that a lot of what you've written in this thread is correct. You've stated:


the clause in question, "in that movement phase" is actually an adverbial phrase which modifies the phrase "if it has moved flat out" only.

and


"If they had intended the phrase "in that movement phase" to apply to embarking/disembarking, then the rule should read: "Passengers may not embark or disembark in that movement phase from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out.""

and

Emergency disembark does not apply here either.:

4) If any models cannot disembark because of enemies or because they would end up in impassable terrain, the unit can perform an 'emergency disembarkation' - the models are deployed anywhere within 2" of the vehicle's hull... (p.67)

The conditions which must exist to emergency disembark do not apply to our situation here. They are simply not allowed to disembark.


All of these assertions are correct. They are not, however, sufficient to lead, logically, to your conclusion.

Let's look at your argument:




1) 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. (p.70)

(This is my point from earlier - As currently written, the adverbial clause 'in that movement phase' cannot modify both the verbs 'move' AND 'disembark'. You must choose one. To put it another way, think about this sentence reading "If it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in the Movement phase, passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle." )

2) ...so a skimmer that is immobilised immediately crashes and is destroyed (wreched) if it moved flat out in its last turn. (p.71)

3) Effects of damage results on passengers: Destroyed - wrecked. The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed. (p.67)

Note that any models that cannot disembark are destroyed. And see point 1: Passengers may not disembark from a fast vehicle if it moved flat out. Therefore, they are destroyed.



I don't have any problems with points two and three, but in re-phrasing point 1, you make a critical error:

Your rephrasing, again, is:


If it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in the Movement phase, passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle.

The problem, here, is that you've replaced the word "that" with the word "the."
This should, instead, read:

"If it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that Movement phase, passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle."

Actually, we shouldn't put that pronoun before its antecedant. To clarify that the "it" is, in fact, the fast vehicle in question, we should really say:

"If a fast vehicle has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that Movement phase, passengers may not embark onto or disembark from it."

Let's take a moment to look at that, then. Does it, when applied to the question at hand, make more sense than the original version?

Not really, but by rephrasing it, we can see why both this version and the original version fail to do much for us here: in both cases, we're left wondering which movement phase is "that" movement phase.

By switching articles, you leave us with the implication that a fast vehicle's having moved flat out in any movement phase (or in the Movement Phase, treating movement phase as a singular proper noun which refers to some element of the game in general, rather than a particular instance of that element) is sufficient to prevent passengers from disembarking from that vehicle, but that impression is incorrect.

Neither a fast vehicle's having moved flat out in a movement phase three turns ago nor its having moved flat out in some movement phase in an earlier game is sufficient to prevent embarked model from disembarking from it in a current movement phase, yet, in both cases, it would be accurate to say that the vehicle "has moved flat out in the movement phase," which is the criterion set by your revision of the rule

So, it's clear that we must retain the original article, "that," and it is also clear, when we do, that the rule has to be triggered by a fast vehicle's having moved flat out in some particular movement phase.

Imagine, then, that it is my shooting phase, and I wreck one of your vendettas. You are forced to disembark your models from the vendetta, and I say, "but if it moved flat out in that movement phase, passengers cannot disembark from it." (This is a direct paraphrasing of the rule in question, as it would apply to this situation). You could easily respond, "which movement phase is 'that' movement phase?"

And, to that response, I would have no acceptable answer. There is nothing at all in the rulebook, the rules of grammar, or the rules of logic to which I can turn to provide you with a justification for pointing to any particular movement phase at all as "that" one. No movement phase is that movement phase unless we have some criteria by which we can pick out some particular movement phase as that one--and we do not have any such criteria. They do not exist in the rules, and they do not exist anywhere else.

Given that, we can see that the rule simply doesn't apply to this situation. When we're in my shooting phase, no movement phase is that movement phase, and so the rule doesn't trigger at all.

This is why you are wrong. The rule will not apply unless the conditions for its application are met. In this case, the conditions can not be met. They require an action to have been performed in during a specific time frame, but we are not given the tools we'd need to actually identify that time frame. It is simply impossible for you, or me, or anyone to legitimately claim, during my shooting phase, that your Vendetta moved flat out in "that Movement phase", because there is no legitimate reason to believe that any particular movement phase is "that" one. Since this claim cannot be made legitimately, the rule in question cannot be legitimately applied in the way you suggest we apply it.


Anyway, I don't play any armies with fast transports, but, if I did, that's how I would respond.

I would simply ask, "which movement phase was "that" one, and why?" and I can't think of any answer which I would accept as reasonable. If you can come up with one, though, by all means, run it by me.


Also, for what it's worth, a "turn" is a player turn. If the "moving fast status" lasted for a turn, it wouldn't last into your opponent's turn, anyway. You'd have to specify that it lasts for a "game turn" for it to do so.

[addamsfamily36]

I know that Bean has already covered this, but i noticed the same thing:


"I will take a photo of you if you run around the block in the nude".

you asked if anyone could argue this example, well lets give it a try:D

If you compare the two statements

"I will take a photo of you if you run around the block in the nude".

"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."

These two words change the meaning of each line significantly.

THE

A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be the same thing that the speaker has already mentioned, or it may be something uniquely specified. The definite article in English is the.
The children knew the fastest way home.
Give me the book has a markedly different meaning in most English contexts from give me a book.


THAT

The word that is used in the English language for several grammatical purposes one of which is
to introduce a restrictive clause:

In semantics, a modifier is said to be restrictive (or defining) if it restricts the reference of its head. For example, in "the red car is fancier than the blue one", red and blue are restrictive, because they restrict which cars car and one are referring to. ("The car is fancier than the one" would make little sense.)

The "that" in

"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."restricts the context to the now, to that movement phase. If the word had been The, then i would agree with your argument, but it isn't.

[Melissia]

Furthermore, this interpretation of the rules doesn't trigger an Occam's Razor response in my mind, and so, logically speaking, it is infinitely preferable to Maturin's interpretation. Occam's Razor, for those that don't know, is the concept of "the simplest solution is usually the correct one", to be unnecessarily short in its definition. It applies here because Maturin's response brings up far too many questions due to its arbitrary nature; IE, how does he decide how long it lasts? He never gave a clear reason in my mind why it would last a game turn as opposed to a player turn, or the entire game, or a single phase).

[EnglishInquisition]

Well here's my spanner being thrown into the works:
BRB P66 Embarking and Disembarking
Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the movement phase, and may not both voluntarily both embark and disembark in the same player turn. However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed.

This, to me, seems to be there to show that passengers can be forced to disembark, even if normally prevented from doing so, because they embarked (for example).
Therefore, it follows, that when moving flat out and a disembark is disallowed (in the movement phase because thats when embark/disembark takes place- line 1 of above quote), when a vehicle is wrecked, the passengers are allowed, no FORCED, to disembark. Whether that's an emergency disembark or not is just a follow on from the positioning of the passengers and enemies/terrrain after they are forced out of their now wrecked vehicle.

People are rules lawyering here, whether they like to admit it or not, because they are taking single lines, sections, or even single words! and omitting the intent and context of the rule as a whole.

You may have gathered from another thread that devolved into this similar situation that i very much beleive in the intent of a rule not the RAW (rules as written, God I hate that).

[Melissia]

In this case, I think both the intent and the RAW are the same. The intent is quite obvious however, given the very clear statement at the start of the Transprots section: "Some vehicles can carry infantry across the battlefield, providing speed and protection." The very first sentence, even. Transports protect the passengers, rather than endanger them.

[whitestar333]

In this case, I think both the intent and the RAW are the same. The intent is quite obvious however, given the very clear statement at the start of the Transprots section: "Some vehicles can carry infantry across the battlefield, providing speed and protection." The very first sentence, even. Transports protect the passengers, rather than endanger them.

While I agree with your interpretation Melissia, I do not agree with your rationale here. The text you quoted says that transports provide protection, but it doesn't specify what against. Does it protect them from a deathstrike missile, a bolt pistol, a 'Gets Hot' weapon, or sexually transmitted diseases? This section of the rulebook does not specify and cannot be quoted for any rules decisions. According to your argument, troops shouldn't take any damage from an exploding transport they are inside either, because the vehicles is meant to protect them, not hurt them when it explodes (which, to me, sounds a little juvenile). I've heard this same argument used for the Doom, but transports are not these magical boxes that protect troops from everything, they already protect them from a lot.

I would like to remind everyone who played in 4th edition of the terrible things happened to troops in transports, and while GW changed it for good reason, there's no reason why troops are suddenly invincible. If you did not play in 4th edition, then be thankful that your transports are as safe as they are. I found it funny, Melissia, when you mentioned the unrealistic rules of weapons penetrates a vehicle hull and how it doesn't affect the passengers, because in 4th edition, any penetrating hit forced embarked troops to disembark. Also, there was a chance that an ordnance weapon penetrating your vehicle would result in the complete annihilation of the vehicle and it's passengers (no saves allowed).

I think that addamsfamily36 argued the point the best, and I will bow to his judgment on this matter, I think his analysis of the situation is the most valid, in combination with EnglishInquisition saying that passengers are forced to disembark when they normally would not be allowed to do so.

[Melissia]

While I agree with your interpretation Melissia, I do not agree with your rationale here. The text you quoted says that transports provide protection, but it doesn't specify what against. Does it protect them from a deathstrike missile, a bolt pistol, a 'Gets Hot' weapon, or sexually transmitted diseases?
Yes, yes, no, no (and stop worshiping Slaanesh).

It's a general statement of intent; it doesn't need to be specific because it is not a rule itself. It is merely that-- a statement of intent. Gets Hot! is an exception to this general rule regardless, because it is a wound caused by the passenger his/herself, and STDs generally have no effect on the battlefield (and stop worshiping Slaanesh!) anyway so dunno why you'd bring it up.

[DarkLink]

In this case, I think both the intent and the RAW are the same. The intent is quite obvious however, given the very clear statement at the start of the Transprots section: "Some vehicles can carry infantry across the battlefield, providing speed and protection." The very first sentence, even. Transports protect the passengers, rather than endanger them.

Well, then passangers shouldn't take any hits when thier vehicle explodes, I guess. Since obviously the writers intended for vehicle to protect rather than potentially kill their passenger.




Anyways, yeah, I'm too lazy now to bother digging through the rulebook one way or another. In fact, I should be sleeping now, instead of typing.

[Bean]

While, normally, I would basically discount everything Melissia says, she's basically right, here, and your objections (I'm looking at you, here, Dark Link) are basically nonsense.

She isn't drawing her conclusion from the statement of intent. An argument reductio ad absurdum which asserts that, if you accept the statement of intent as a rule, vehicles don't hurt their passengers when exploding, is simply irrelevant since no-one, including Melissia, is putting that statement of intent forth as a rule.

Her position is correct because of the way the rule itself is worded. Nit-picking at her interpretation of the rule's intent is of no value to the discussion. If you want to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, show how you can reasonably pick out some specific, past movement phase as the "that Movement phase" referred to by the rules. If you can't do that, have the decency to admit that your position is in error and bow out.

Don't quibble about the rule's intent, and, especially, don't respond to an assertion about the rule's intent as if it were something it is not.

[Maturin]

*Yawn*

Ahhhh - a good night's sleep has restored my wits, and I'm eager to get back into this most fascinating of discussions. :D

Bean - as usual, your analysis is precise and laser-beam accurate - it's a pleasure to read your exposition. You are correct - I have rephrased, and omitted the word "that". It is a problem I've been pondering - why would the writers use the word "that" which really is redundant in this context? Perhaps they just like being redundant. And indeed - by RAW, there is no temporal parameter to the prohibition on embarking/disembarking, so we are forced to rely on context or assumption. But...

Addamsfamily36 has provided me with an answer! Thank you! As he (she?) points out, the word "that" means it is a restrictive clause. What does it restrict? Not the embark/disembark, as that verb is in a different clause. Instead it restricts the reference to vehicles moving fast....to just "that" movement phase.

Now I admit the ground I'm standing on gets a bit shaky here (:p) but bear with me for a moment. Again, we call on context. Let's remember that the primary time we would refer to this rule is in our own movement phase. We're just arguing about an exception that (hopefully) happens rarely. Now if we're in our own movement phase, then the word "that" makes sense - there is a clear movement phase to refer to. What if we're not in our own movement phase? Then we must seek out the movement phase which is most relevant - which presumably is the one which occurred most recently, and which conferred the "moving fast" status upon the vehicle.

So by following this (fairly logical) analysis, we arrive at the conclusion that units are only prohibited from embarking/disembarking when their vehicle has moved fast in THAT movement phase (i.e. the most recent one in which it got to move).

I hope this argument provides Melissa with an answer to why I believe the restriction lasts for a game turn, and not any other time. I respect your invocation of Occam's razor, but I think it is flawed. The entire game of 40k is a rejection of Occam's razor - really, rules are all about making simple things more complicated, albeit in a fun manner. ;)

EnglishInquisition - I think you may have me here. I have no real rebuttal to your point, other than to point out that the paragraph you mentioned does not (at any time) state that models must disembark. Even if we concede that I am wrong here, the paragraph you cite does not prevent models which cannot 'emergency disembark' from being destroyed. If this paragraph prevents models which cannot disembark (due to vehicles moving fast) from being destroyed, should it not also do so for models which cannot 'emergency disembark'?

As to the intent of the designers in writing this rule - how can we really say what they are? They clearly mean for models to be not able to get in or out because the vehicle's going too fast. Is it a logical stretch for me to believe that the vehicles are going too fast for passengers to survive a crash? And that the designers intended to reflect this with this rule? It's certainly the way we play in our area...

Melissa - this rule does not force your transports to move fast. If you choose to proceed with caution, then your units are safe. It's up to you. The designers have given the players the chance to increase the risks if you choose, with a suitably increased reward if you survive. I'll take the option, along with the risks. Nothing about this rules makes transports inherently unsafe.

[Bean]

A well constructed response, Maturin, but I still think it contains an error in reasoning, and that error can be found in this particular section (you'll have to pardon me for not responding directly to the rest of the content of your post, I have to make breakfast and I don't have a ton of time to write this out.)



What if we're not in our own movement phase? Then we must seek out the movement phase which is most relevant - which presumably is the one which occurred most recently, and which conferred the "moving fast" status upon the vehicle.

You make an assumption, here, that we must attempt to find a movement phase to which this rule refers.

I don't think that assumption is justified. The rule doesn't always have to refer to a movement phase. It doesn't always have to apply or be relevant. We don't have to search for the movement phase to which it refers.

Instead, the reverse is true. The rule only applies when we can identify the movement phase to which it refers. We shouldn't have to guess at what movement phase that is. If the rules don't tell us what movement phase they're talking about, rules that trigger from actions in "that" movement phase simply don't apply--they aren't relevant.

As you say, when we're currently in a movement phase, "that" movement phase does properly refer to the movement phase we're currently in. The rule works to restrict my actions during my own movement phase.

Once we get out of my movement phase, though, "that" movement phase no longer properly refers to any movement phase. Sure, we could say, "well, the last movement phase in which it moves is the movement phase to which it probably should refer," but I don't think it's neither necessary nor appropriate to do so.

I think it is better to simply accept that, outside of a particular movement phase, "that" movement phase doesn't refer to any movement phase. The fact that the rule has no effect outside of the movement phase just doesn't seem like a good reason to go shoe-horning past movement phases into the "that" heading when they don't really fit. I'm fine with the rule's failure to be relevant outside of the movement phase.

[Maturin]

I don't think that assumption is justified. The rule doesn't always have to refer to a movement phase. It doesn't always have to apply or be relevant. We don't have to search for the movement phase to which it refers.

I'm being disqualified on jurisdictional grounds?

*clutches chest*

Gah......awk.....ya got me, Bean!

*slump*


All kidding aside, I think I may have to concede the point here. If there's no specified movement phase, then yes I'll have to assume which one is relevant - or if I need to apply the rule at all. Harumph. Well played, well played.

We'll just have to continue house-ruling it over here. :)

Thanks to everyone - it's been entertaining! Out to do yard-work today now......too much internets.

[addamsfamily36]

Addamsfamily36 has provided me with an answer! Thank you! As he (she?) points out, the word "that" means it is a restrictive clause. What does it restrict? Not the embark/disembark, as that verb is in a different clause. Instead it restricts the reference to vehicles moving fast....to just "that" movement phase.

Just so everyone knows, lol, im a guy not a girl.

just wanted to specify

[Melissia]

Well, then passengers shouldn't take any hits when their vehicle explodes, I guess. Since obviously the writers intended for vehicle to protect rather than potentially kill their passenger.

That's a moronic strawman fallacy, and you know it :P A 2+ armor save also protects the unit with it, for example, doesn't mean it protects it from everything. Just that things which pierce 2+ saves are generally the exception to the rule. Similarly, the things which can harm a unit in its transport are the exceptions to the rule, such as Gets Hot, or the vehicle explode rules.

[Maturin]

Strawmen abound in this thread, methinks. ;)

If there are a few exceptions, why not one more?

[DarkLink]

While, normally, I would basically discount everything Melissia says, she's basically right, here, and your objections (I'm looking at you, here, Dark Link) are basically nonsense.

She isn't drawing her conclusion from the statement of intent. An argument reductio ad absurdum which asserts that, if you accept the statement of intent as a rule, vehicles don't hurt their passengers when exploding, is simply irrelevant since no-one, including Melissia, is putting that statement of intent forth as a rule.

Her position is correct because of the way the rule itself is worded. Nit-picking at her interpretation of the rule's intent is of no value to the discussion. If you want to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, show how you can reasonably pick out some specific, past movement phase as the "that Movement phase" referred to by the rules. If you can't do that, have the decency to admit that your position is in error and bow out.

Don't quibble about the rule's intent, and, especially, don't respond to an assertion about the rule's intent as if it were something it is not.


That's a moronic strawman fallacy, and you know it :P

Hey, I was joking about that. Someone needs to not get their panties in a bunch (I'm looking at you, Bean).

Anyways, there's not any point in arguing against something, when I'm willing to accept the opposing argument now. I missed the "that" in the statement, and that lead me to a different conclusion originally.

[Tynskel]

I am confused now--- u used that in the same sentence twice.... which that is that that refering that that to?


;)

[Melissia]

Tynskel: "that" has multiple definitions. Yes, English is crazy.

For example: "I am concerned that that kitten will eat me alive." is a valid sentence. The first that relates to "I am concerned" as what I believe is called a complementizer, while the second that relates to the kitten, specifying which kitten in particular similar to the phrase "that one over there".

Strawmen abound in this thread, methinks. ;)

If there are a few exceptions, why not one more?

There can be more. But you have yet to prove it.

[Tynskel]

Tynskel: "that" has multiple definitions. Yes, English is crazy.

For example: "I am concerned that that kitten will eat me alive." is a valid sentence. The first that relates to "I am concerned" as what I believe is called a complementizer, while the second that relates to the kitten, specifying which kitten in particular similar to the phrase "that one over there".


There can be more. But you have yet to prove it.

hehehe, I know! That is why I wrote a phat that sentence!

[Maturin]

Tynskel: "that" has multiple definitions. Yes, English is crazy.

For example: "I am concerned that that kitten will eat me alive." is a valid sentence. The first that relates to "I am concerned" as what I believe is called a complementizer, while the second that relates to the kitten, specifying which kitten in particular similar to the phrase "that one over there".


There can be more. But you have yet to prove it.

Yes, yes. I have already conceded the point. I was just hoping to point out that the particular line of thought you're following doesn't have much merit...

[Bean]

Hey, I was joking about that. Someone needs to not get their panties in a bunch (I'm looking at you, Bean).

Fair. Sorry.

[DarkLink]

Hey, no worries.

[Melissia]

Yes, yes. I have already conceded the point. I was just hoping to point out that the particular line of thought you're following doesn't have much merit...

It has more merit than your line of thought :P

[Denzark]

Well, this has amused my lunch hour. I do not think THAT movement phase means only in that particular players movement phase, does the effects of moving flat out apply to disembarking.

Let me see if I can think of principles whereby the speed in a movement phase affects other game actions:

Cruising speed + in THAT movement phase? 6 to hit in HTH.

Shooting a skimmer that went flat out in THAT movement phase? Gets a 3+ save.

Moved cruising speed in THAT movement phase? Cant shoot if you're not a fast vehicle.

Having established the principle, I am thinking of Eldar Wargear - vectored engines. Codex trumping rulebook, in htat they allow passengers to disembark from a flat out transport. I can't think why this expensive wargear would oonly be of use in a movement phase instead of against any effect causing the crash.

So, what were they trying to say? I can't talk about verbs, adverbs and all that crap. My English teacher usd to try to get me to analyse Shakespeare - I used to tell him its irrelevant what verb went down because the bard didn't give 2 sh*ts about what verb he used, he just wrote cracking plays.

Similarly, I can't use that context in this argument. I can tell you this.

American English has momentarily as 'in a moment'.

Queen's English (God Bless Her) has momentarily as 'for a moment'.

American English has regular as a portion size.

Queen's English has regular as a measurement of time in which the intervals are similar.

So whilst I wouldn't know an Adverb if it shouted 'Blood for the Blood God' and tried to chainaxe me, I claim an excellent working knowledge of colloquial spoken english with the same vernacular as the author, unless this para was written by Alessio.

So I tell you that use of the word that by a British games designer does not preclude the affect happening in further, later phases, especially given the principle that some rules definitely do above.

However, it may simply be a matter of poorly written english, or the draft was blurry and the Polish type setter in the printers couldn't read what was on the draft - its not like GW has a 100% record for clear rules is it?

Quite simply I can see no reason why some later turn phases would be effected by the vehicles speed, but people would think the vehicles speed could not have a negative effect on itself or its passengers, unless wrecked in its own movement.

[Melissia]

Well, this has amused my lunch hour. I do not think THAT movement phase means only in that particular players movement phase, does the effects of moving flat out apply to disembarking.
And if it doesn't, then when does the restriction on movement end, and can anyone PROVE That's when it ends, what phase(s) or turn(s) it covers?

Because I don't see anything else that could say it. It doesn't say for a player turn, or for a game turn, or for the rest of the game, or whatever. It only says that phase. Seriously, I'm curious where people got one game turn out of this... it's extremely arbitrary to me.

[addamsfamily36]

And if it doesn't, then when does the restriction on movement end, and can anyone PROVE That's when it ends, what phase(s) or turn(s) it covers?

Because I don't see anything else that could say it. It doesn't say for a player turn, or for a game turn, or for the rest of the game, or whatever. It only says that phase. Seriously, I'm curious where people got one game turn out of this... it's extremely arbitrary to me.

And me

[Tynskel]

And me

Me too!


I posted earlier that the rest of the rules make it extremely difficult for embarked units to be destroyed when the transport is wrecked. Every case where the embarked unit is destroyed (except when the transport is completely surrounded- even then if you can fit a model in, that model can deploy) is when the owning player is doing something reckless--- deep strike close to impassable terrain, skimmer going flat out and starting/ending movement in terrain (p. 67, 70, 71, 95).

The only thing I can think of that is an offensive ability (but still very very limited in application) that destroys the embarked unit is the Mawloc 'Terror from the Deep' (p. 51 C:T). 'Any models that cannot be moved out of the way are destroyed.' You could still disembark, but they would still have to be able to 'fit' (the special rule doesn't end until all models have satisfied the conditions for the blast template. If the Transport could not be placed there, it is quite likely the unit cannot be placed there either.

[Denzark]

I see where you are coming from Melly. I have given examples where vehicle speed affects actions in later phases - whilst it could go into 2 player turns (if controlling player goes second for example his flat out in turn 1 will cause any opponents assaulting him in their turn 2 to use sixes).

I have given you my thoughts as to LOCAL use of language, from a non-amerenglish, true english speaker pov. I have mentioned the fact that not 100% of GW rules are clearly written.

I fully acknowledge this is seemingly a RAW vs RAI question.

My last thought would be to check Codex Eldar on vectored engines - the wording might reveal clues. If it says soemthing like: "vectored engines allow troops to disembark even if their transport was wrecked whilst moving flat out, FOR EXAMPLE BY...." then this would imply to me there is more than one use for said vectored engines, and thus more than 1 way for wrecking a flat out transport to kill all contained.

This I cannot do until I get home as I work away during the week and only bought non-xenos codexes with me for now...