Destroying fast transports vehicles

[Marshal Wilhelm]

As (I think) Wilhelm sorta said, the Skimmer example doesn't quite work because 71: "is immobilised immediately crashes and is destroyed (wrecked) if it moved flat out in its last turn", not the current movement phase.

 

Sorta said? I did said! :huh:

[Roland Durendal]

An ale for MW and njm3 for having a sound and logical answer that I was going to write but they beat me to it :)

 

 

To summarize: a skimmer moving flat out in it's movement phase goes into dangerous terrain, rolls a 1, and becomes wrecked (due to immobilzed - wrecked for skimmers moving flat out), all passengers inside are killed as well. Sucks for my Vets riding in Valkyries but that's the risk you run.

 

A skimmer moved flat out in it's movement phase, and is then shot at in the subsequent opponentss shooting phase, is hit, pen'd, and a wreck/destroyed result is rolled. Poor skimmer dies, troops disembark (after taking casualties of course).

 

and voila! Solved.

[Sister Agamemnon]

"disembark restriction on page 70 only applies to that movement phase".... The THAT isn't referring to the Embarking or Disembarking.. it's referring to the MOVEMENT.. if you MOVED FLAT out in the THAT movement phase you can't disembark or embark... if it was what people are saying there the sentence would need to say something simular to " You may not disembark or embark in the movement phase if you moved or are going to flat out "

 

Sentence structure and the english language can be a hell of a thing. but sentences follow and order and construction " I know I suck at grammar and english being an engineer but, this is something I do know"

[Sister Agamemnon]

And it has to refer to the movement in THAT PHASE.. because if it wasn't what phase of movement would it refer to? Previous phase? next phase? As I said think about all the other bonuses that you get from moving flat out? They last the entire player turn why wouldn't the one major downside also last till the next player turn?

[Sister Agamemnon]

BBB pg 71; "A skimmer that is not immobilised and moved flat out in its last movement phase counts as obscured when fired at.

 

It has to say that because you don't fire at it till your turn which is after when it last moved hence the last movement phase if it said THAT movement phase it wouldn't make sense. But again the wording here follows in order.

 

pg 63; "As the vehicle has no WS, the score needed to hit depends on the speed of the target, as follows:

 

blah

in its previous turn

 

Because your resolving in the next turn... if you said that turn or that phase it wouldn't make sense

 

blah blah

in its previous turn

 

Because your resolving in the next turn... if you said that turn or that phase it wouldn't make sense

 

blah blah blah

in its previous turn

 

Because your resolving in the next turn... if you said that turn or that phase it wouldn't make sense

 

4th ed has no bearing on how 5th ed rules work.

True but, that are more things in common then different and when you have rule that is on the fence like this one then past precedent would seem to make more sense then not.

 

BBB pg 70; Fast Transport Vehicles

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

 

And my biggest part of the arguement sentence structure.. the moving part of the sentence is that the movement phase statement is modifying...not the embark or disembark part otherwise it would be written simular to my previous post.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Though I have already jumped the gun, I'll start again; Welcome to the B&C Phaggamemnon :)

I trust you will enjoy your time here amongst us ~ even if we don't see eye to eye ;)

But our friendship will grow regardless.

 

And it has to refer to the movement in THAT PHASE.. because if it wasn't what phase of movement would it refer to? Previous phase? next phase? As I said think about all the other bonuses that you get from moving flat out? They last the entire player turn why wouldn't the one major downside also last till the next player turn?

 

This is something I call people on, and it often doesn't go down well because people feel when I say their understanding is wrong, they think I am devaluing them. But anyway, here goes :P

 

RAW is exactly what I have said. What you are doing is interpreting rules. There is nothing wrong with that and if you are you mates play that way, cool. But it is not RAW.

 

We don't have to "think about all the other bonuses that you get from moving flat out? They last the entire player turn why wouldn't the one major downside also last till the next player turn?"

Why? Because that is not what the rules literally say.

 

That is how RAW is worked out. I seriously over-stepped the mark in arguing something in another thread. In the way I argued. What I argued was still correct, even though some people refuse to accept it, and some think I am a jerk for not playing RAI (intended by whom, I ask?) So I don't want to ruin my argument with another person :lol: again :D

 

What do you think about my statement on the difference between RAW and interpretation?

 

+++

 

An ale for MW and njm3 for having a sound and logical answer that I was going to write but they beat me to it

 

Yippee for ale, grazi RD ^_^

[Sister Agamemnon]

Haha I am not offended please almost my whole group are veterans of Iraq and Afganistan haha polite isn't something we do.. and as far as RAW etc one of our group is a paralegal lol.. and he agrees with what I have said

 

and you way of seeing RAW and Interpretation is fine

 

However, ENGLISH as written and and ENGLISH as interpretted

 

EAW agrees with me EAI agrees with you ;)

 

So one thing people AREN'T addressing is sentence structure... so as WRITTEN.. the Movement Phase of the sentence is referring to the MOVEMENT itself and not the embark or disembark.

 

And this actually came up in a tournament... the judge ruled on my side... and I actually thought I was nice and gave the player an emergency disembark.. later I learned that wasn't proper...

 

Do any of us know why GW got rid of the rules boy phone #? and email? and well just ugh ignores these things for too long? I mean many other mini games are very active about this stuff... It gets my dander up..

[Roland Durendal]

Until I get back to my CHU and can look at the rule book in more detail, I won't go more in depth in the rules but, I did find one argument of yours that is grammatically flawed:

 

the Movement Phase of the sentence is referring to the MOVEMENT itself and not the embark or disembark. the THAT that everyone is debating refers to the movement phase, not to movement/embarking/disembarking.

 

IIRC it says something like, 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. The "that" refers to one thing and one thing alone: the phase. It specifically tells us which phase (and even more specifically which movement phase) the rule takes place in. It doesn't refer to the movement at all (i.e. moving "flat out"), or even to embarking/disembarking. It does relate the phase in which the current action is taking place (i.e. moving "flat out").

 

Argument wise, I can see both sides, for both hold grammatical weight:

 

1). Unit is killed in shooting phase b/c their skimmer moved flat out during their movement phase, and is subsequently shot/wrecked in opponents movement phase. On account of the wording "has moved" this makes sense, as has moved is pointing to an action taken in the past.

 

2). Unit is not killed in shooting phase, even thoug their skimmer moved flat out in their movement phase, as the rule pertaining to embarking/disembarking from a fast moving skimmer only pertains to the specific movement phase in which they moved.

 

The only reason I lean more towards #2 is that while "has moved" can be used to argue that they die in the following shooting phase, it is technically...borderline poor grammar to assume that, as the "has moved" is relating to a recently occuring action (or recently completed action) in a specific current time frame (that movement phase - the movement phase which the player is in currently). To be 100% grammatically accurate for #1 to be true, it would have to say something along the lines of:

 

"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, or has moved flat out in its movement phase." That would roll up nicely all possibilities for both the current movement phase as well as future enemy shooting phases. You could make it even more explicit by saying "or has moved flat out in its most recent movement phase" or "has moved flat out in its last movement phase", as all these options are a past action taking place in the past, as opposed to a past action taking place in the present. The way I rewrote it makes it easy to break apart and apply the logic test to:

 

Player 1 (Skimmer owner): Did I (or Have I) move(d) my skimmer flat out in the current movement phase? Yes. Then any wrecks/destroys will kill all inside.

Player 1 (Skimmer owner): Will I move (or Am I going to move) my skimmer flat out in the current movement phase? Yes. Then any wrecks/destroys will kill all inside.

Player 2 (Skimmer-Killer): Has(or Did) Player 1's Skimmer move flat out in its movement phase? Yes. Then any wrecks/destroys will kill all inside.

Player 2 (Skimmer-Killer): Has(or Did) Player 1's Skimmer move flat out in its most recent movement phase? Yes. Then any wrecks/destroys will kill all inside.

Player 2 (Skimmer-Killer): Has(or Did) Player 1's Skimmer move flat out in its last movement phase? Yes. Then any wrecks/destroys will kill all inside.

 

With the inclusion of a simple addendum which specifies past action in a past time frame, everything would be nice and neat and clear. Yet since it doesn't state it thus, logically it points to only relating to a result that only effects the current ("that" if you will) movement phase.

 

Food for thought

[Sister Agamemnon]

Ok devil's advocate... what if it didn't put either the word THAT or if you tried it without MOVEMENT phase... Look at what it would mean then?

 

 

"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, or has moved flat out in its movement phase."

 

 

And what you wrote says the same thing... its phase and that phase are the same phase... I mean it almost makes it seem like it's That turn vs ITS phase but since it's phase vs phase it can't be that. And the way this is written the THAT is referring to current condition and so ITS...

 

For it to mean they get out it dispite moving it would have to say what I wrote before or something simular to what I wrote below...

 

" You may not disembark or embark in the movement phase if you moved or are going to flat out "

 

But it doesn't say that...

 

 

God in my over decade of play... I don't think I've ever run across such an annoying / argueable rule

[Sister Agamemnon]

Until I get back to my CHU and can look at the rule book in more detail, I won't go more in depth in the rules but, I did find one argument of yours that is grammatically flawed:

 

the Movement Phase of the sentence is referring to the MOVEMENT itself and not the embark or disembark. the THAT that everyone is debating refers to the movement phase, not to movement/embarking/disembarking.

 

IIRC it says something like, 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. The "that" refers to one thing and one thing alone: the phase. It specifically tells us which phase (and even more specifically which movement phase) the rule takes place in. It doesn't refer to the movement at all (i.e. moving "flat out"), or even to embarking/disembarking. It does relate the phase in which the current action is taking place (i.e. moving "flat out").

 

 

and the THAT isn't really my focus.. it's MOVEMENT PHASE chunk is refering to MOVEMENT not to Embark vs Disembark. I realized I wrote that wrong... but I am tired lol... But yeah I mean to say people think the end of the sentence is skipping over the middle or referring to the sentence as a whole.. but there are no comma's. semi colons, and etc.. so the MOVEMENT PHASE only referes to the MOVEMENT not to the embark vs disemabark...

 

My focus on THAT is because people point out other rules for shooting at a fast skimmer etc say Previous Movement phase.. my point is they have to use a word that speaks in present text for the sentence regardless otherwise it wouldn't make sense at all in either condition lol

 

One day I'll figure out who to properly block quote people on the forum lol I am sure me not knowing how to do this is making it hard for people to follow lol

[Roland Durendal]

Ok devil's advocate... what if it didn't put either the word THAT or if you tried it without MOVEMENT phase... Look at what it would mean then?

 

 

"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, or has moved flat out in its movement phase."

 

 

And what you wrote says the same thing... its phase and that phase are the same phase... I mean it almost makes it seem like it's That turn vs ITS phase but since it's phase vs phase it can't be that. And the way this is written the THAT is referring to current condition and so ITS...

 

For it to mean they get out it dispite moving it would have to say what I wrote before or something simular to what I wrote below...

 

" You may not disembark or embark in the movement phase if you moved or are going to flat out "

 

But it doesn't say that...

 

 

God in my over decade of play... I don't think I've ever run across such an annoying / argueable rule

 

Haha no worries I know to what you were referring with regard to the "that" I was just being a grammatical perfectionist ;)

 

But I agree with what you say above about removing the word "that" and substituting in "the" or even removing "movement phase" as it would then be grammatically correct with regard to what you're arguing.

 

As for what I wrote, grammatically "that" and "its" aren't really the same. They may share one similarity, but the "its" is actually more far reaching and encompassing. If I can try and phrase it this was, if it has moved in "that" (meaning current phase) is one thing, saying it has moved in "its" movement phase can be either a current contemporary movement phase OR a movement phase which has already occurred. This is due to the verb showing an actuon occurring in the past. The "that" only allows for an action that occurred in the past during that one specific moment in time (i.e. the player's turn in which the vehicle moved), whereas the "its" plus the past tense of the verb permits both the occurrance in the specific moment in time (i.e. the player's turn in which the vehicle moved), as well as potential past movement phases (such as the opposing player in his shooting phase asking: did that skimmer move in its movement phase? i.e. the movement phase which it last went through?)

 

Plus if you look at it grammatically from the opposing players point of view, which sounds (and is) more grammatically correct:

 

Did his skimmer move flat out in that movement phase?

 

or

 

Did his skimmer move flat out in its movement phase?

 

The first sounds (and is) grammatically off. To which movement phase is he referring? To which phase does the "that" point to? The current one? But it's not the skimmer owners turn and so he couldn't have moved it in the current movement phase. The skimmer owners last movement phase? That's the only logical answer, but it is extremely vague and ill defined, whereas just putting in "its movement phase" (or the way you wrote it too, "the movement phase") is clear cut.

 

Haha and if you want to see a debate like this that went on for over 7 pages, check out the Space Wolf sub-forum and look for the thread on Thunderwolf Lords and Thunderhammers: is it S9 or S10. That'sa doozy of a debate

[Sister Agamemnon]

It is the skimmers owners turn...Since they now know that since they moved flat out in their phase they may not embark or disembark the question is ... does that mean just right now? or till their next movement?... I would say it must be the later... and I agree it should say its versus that does sound better but the the THAT refers to the current action disembarking/embarking while moving or going to moveflat out... I think the big reason they choose that vs its because they wanted to emphasize you can't jump out and then send the skimmer on a suiside ram.

[Sister Agamemnon]

As far as the thunderwolf cav and hammers .. It's S10 because the modifier is fixed vs situational.. So Ork nobs with furious charge are S9 powerfist not S10 because it double then add +1 for furious charge.. but the S1 added for Thunder cav is fixed so it doubles the fixed amound... I assume that was what the debate was about?

[JamesI]

As far as the thunderwolf cav and hammers .. It's S10 because the modifier is fixed vs situational.. So Ork nobs with furious charge are S9 powerfist not S10 because it double then add +1 for furious charge.. but the S1 added for Thunder cav is fixed so it doubles the fixed amound... I assume that was what the debate was about?

Thats not the way RAW works (though it is clear that is the intention). There are several threads dealing with this issue, so I won't derail this one over it.

[Sister Agamemnon]

I hate the term RAW written because if things were RAW then their wouldn't be debates lol.. RAW would infer it was done clearly without arguement lol...

 

It's like GW could host a player panel or something... at least once a quarter to address this stuff hell twice a year would be amazing lol... GW shoudl at least try and ask "Hey which rules do you find fuzzy and why?"

 

I mean privateer press is very good about addressing that kind of stuff .. but on the flip side they update WAY to much.. it's almost like you have to print rules everyday you want to play cause they update them so often lol...

[Sister Agamemnon]

Oh and the little tag at the Bottom of your reply abou the Librarian Furioso.. haha OMG a flying dreadnaught what more could you want lol? Ugh maybe in a year or two when my codex come out then i'll get flying broadsides lol :rolleyes: with 3+ inv Storm Drones hahaha :P

[FlameAnvil]

So...if a eldar fast transport gets hit (after a 24"move) by my Demolisher and gets wrecked, the guys inside get out or no?

 

in the rules if a transport wrecks, all models "MUST" disembark... never says unless, they must, i would assume its an emergency disembark, so within 2" of the trasport, and nothing else can be done in the next (Eldar) turn for that uint. And rules are not effected by THE WAY IT... ;) Grammar.

 

I don't see an agreement here, half say yea, half nay....

 

If it goes boom the uint is in the crater. IK that.

[Sister Agamemnon]

Emergency Disembark can only be done in 2 circumstances which are , if a normal disembark would put you in impassible terrain or if your doors are within an inch of the enemy if it's not one of those two things you either disembark as normal or don't disembark at all...

 

And no it's not an agreement .. lol not at all... I say they all the die.. being that the rule is being read both ways I would say logic must then be the next step *rare in warhammer I know* but everyone dying is more then fair provides balance to all the advantages someone gets for moving at out..

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Haha I am not offended please almost my whole group are veterans of Iraq and Afganistan haha polite isn't something we do.. and as far as RAW etc one of our group is a paralegal lol.. and he agrees with what I have said

 

and you way of seeing RAW and Interpretation is fine

However, ENGLISH as written and and ENGLISH as interpretted

EAW agrees with me EAI agrees with you ;)

 

So one thing people AREN'T addressing is sentence structure... so as WRITTEN.. the Movement Phase of the sentence is referring to the MOVEMENT itself and not the embark or disembark.

 

Cool ^_^

 

I hate the term RAW written because if things were RAW then their wouldn't be debates lol.. RAW would infer it was done clearly without arguement lol...

 

It's like GW could host a player panel or something... at least once a quarter to address this stuff hell twice a year would be amazing lol... GW shoudl at least try and ask "Hey which rules do you find fuzzy and why?"

 

I mean privateer press is very good about addressing that kind of stuff .. but on the flip side they update WAY to much.. it's almost like you have to print rules everyday you want to play cause they update them so often lol...

 

Though you know;

RAW means only B&W. No common sense, no inferences, no Intended.

 

We never said RAW was intelligent. :no: :P It just provides a common language for all, so you can play anyone anywhere and not get "surprised" :P

 

GW having a bi- or annual FAQ party would be amazing. But if they put in the effort, we have already come up with these answers ~ and for free! All they need to do is troll the half a dozen big sites and they'd know what we "weren't getting".

[Sister Agamemnon]

RAW means only B&W. No common sense, no inferences, no Intended.

 

Yes but you have to INFER that the movement phase refers to the Embark,Disembark and the Movement.. RAW it only refers to the movement itself :) ....

 

I think I finally found the last nail in the coffin of this debate... If you read under the rules for for Independent Characters and embarking and disembarking

 

If either an independant character of a unit is already in a vehicle, the other may join them by embarking too (assuming, of course, that there is enough space left). The unit and the independant character may, in a later Movement phase disembark together as a single unit. *The rest of the paragraph is not related but you may read it if you wish*

 

So the heretics arguing that in the fast tranport rule that THAT MOVEMENT PHASE refers to controlling player would mean that you're also counting your opponents movement phase as another seperate movement phase. Then if we follow that precedant and according to how this is written in the Opponents movement phase I may disembark or embark during my opponents movement phase because that's a later movement phase. It doesn't say in my phase or it's phase it just says a later phase...

[Roland Durendal]

RAW means only B&W. No common sense, no inferences, no Intended.

 

Yes but you have to INFER that the movement phase refers to the Embark,Disembark and the Movement.. RAW it only refers to the movement itself B) ....

 

I think I finally found the final nail in the coffin of this debate... If you read under the rules for for Independent Characters and embarking and disembarking

 

If either an independant character of a unit is already in a vehicle, the other may join them by embarking too (assuming, of course, that there is enough space left). The unit and the independant character may, in a later Movement phase disembark together as a single unit. *The rest of the paragraph is not related but you may read it if you wish*

 

So the heretics arguing that in the fast tranport rule that THAT MOVEMENT PHASE refers to controlling player would mean that you're also counting your opponents movement phase as another seperate movement phase. Then if we follow that precedant and according to how this is written in the Opponents movement phase I may disembark during my opponents movement phase because that's a later movement phase. It doesn't say in my phase or it's phase it just says a later phase...

 

Your opponents movement phase IS a seperate movement phase...last time I checked my opponent can't move in mine, and I can't in his...due to the simple fact that my movement phase occurs during my turn, and my opponents during his...ergo making both of our movement phases unrelated and seperate...but as for the point about the IC, as written you're correct, it doesn't specify which movement phase, it just says a "later movement phase" which can be either. But since we know we can only move our models voluntarily (and embark/disembark is a voulntary movement) during our own individual movement phase, they sadly can't disembark/embark in the opponents movement phase. I'm at work so don't have the 'dex in front of me, but relevant sections which outline movement would be the section describing the player's turn, the movement phase section, and the embark/disembark section.

 

Almost had me there for a minute :)

[Sister Agamemnon]

Yeah in the section under movment it actually says Movement phase in the intro paragraph and player turn when it comes to the rule itself lol GREAT... "In his turn, a player may move any of his units-..." Technically there is nothing saying you can't move your units if it's not your turn lol.. just says you may if it is your turn lol... Wow that is sad there is nothing saying you can't lol... but yeah I am just going to ignore that lol....

 

Actually under the statement you have to read it and think about when could you disembark or embark again ...

 

Since you can't embark or disembark until till your next movement phase when you haven't moved or plan to move flat.. or if that condition goes away during the opponents movement phase then you should be able to disembark or embark lol... Since there is nothing saying you can't.

[JamesI]

Sister Agamemnon, remember, the rules tell you what you CAN do. If they don't say you can move in your opponent's movement phase, then you can't.

[Sister Agamemnon]

Also just for more fun and devil's advocate stuff...

 

Lets say I goto ram someone next to impassible terrain... and I succeed on the terrain test however the ram back immbolizes me which wrecks me over impassible terrain... now as you guys see the rule they all die.. however, under the rules of emergency disembarkation I can try to perform and emergency disembarkation because that's one of the two stipulations required to emergency disembark...

 

So if I ram die over impassible or troops I get an emergency disembark lol? But if I do it free and clear they all die ... hmm...

 

Granted there was a lot of twisting to see this senario and see the rules of emergency disembark to work like that but yeah it seems that there has to plenty of rule stretching to argue they can disembark / embark after moving flat out in the movement phase ... :P

[Sister Agamemnon]

Sister Agamemnon, remember, the rules tell you what you CAN do. If they don't say you can move in your opponent's movement phase, then you can't.

 

 

 

THANKS for proving my point.. No where does the rule say you CAN disembark / embark them ANYTIME accept during YOUR movement ... It does say you CAN'T THOUGH!!! ... So since it doesn't say you CAN disembark/embark them until YOUR next movement phase but it does you CAN'T!!!

 

And even in the wreck result... it says " The passangers must immediately disembark and then take a Pinning test. Any models that can't disembark are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck" Since this is happening in the Shooting phase of the player before the assualt phase of the player that caused the result then it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE for this to happen ... At best during your assualt phase you could assault the vehicle and blow it up but with 6" of movement you're not going to get all the way around it unless multipul units assualt it and even then your opponent gets an emergency disembark and that wont kill everything you can get a quite few guardsmen in the center of a vendetta hull without being in an inch of any of the assualters...