JamesI Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The wrecked result tells us we can disembark. Otherwise any wrecked transport kills everyone inside, is that what you're saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister Agamemnon Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Your are correct but it also says models that can't disembark are killed during a wreck... moving flat out says you can't disembark... So with those powers combined.. A wrecked transport that moved flat out out kills everyone inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Your are correct but it also says models that can't disembark are killed during a wreck... moving flat out says you can't disembark... So with those powers combined.. A wrecked transport that moved flat out out kills everyone inside. You are misreading. Moving Flat our says you can't disembark in "that movement phase". If the transport is wrecked in its movement phase (say from ramming an enemy tank), yep everyone inside dies. If the transport is wrecked from enemy shooting, it is no longer "that movement phase" and they get out just like anyone else. If it said "you can't disembark until your next movement phase" then you would be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister Agamemnon Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 No I am reading correctly.. the MOVEMENT PHASE refers to the MOVEMENT not the Disembark/Embark... If what your saying is correct it would read " You may not disembark or embark in the movement phase if you moved or are going to flat out " Or it flips back to my original comment if the condition wears off that you can't after your movement phase then you can disembark in the opponent phase because the can't has worn off and if it's no longer a can't you can... It's either all or nothing... You either can't till the condition wears off which despite the word PHASE and THAT I don't think wears off till your next turn.. and there are several times in this book where they switch the word TURN and PHASE around... I mean I'd love to hear some other examples of effects that wear off in the same phase they are made *without specific notes saying they end that phase*... Which this rule doesn't have any clearity in regards to that.. hence this arguement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister Agamemnon Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Why did they get rid of rules boyz lol? And the Rules Email lol? I mean I sent an email to their help desk about this... If I don't get a reply by next monday I am just going to start calling lol... Argh!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Why did they get rid of rules boyz lol? And the Rules Email lol? I mean I sent an email to their help desk about this... If I don't get a reply by next monday I am just going to start calling lol... Argh!!! Rulz Boyz were inconsistent. If 5 of us sent in the same question, we would get at least 3 different answers. Until its in a FAQ, nothing from a rules email is going to be accepted based on GW's inconsistencies. No I am reading correctly.. the MOVEMENT PHASE refers to the MOVEMENT not the Disembark/Embark... It's either all or nothing... You either can't till the condition wears off which despite the word PHASE and THAT I don't think wears off till your next turn.. and there are several times in this book where they switch the word TURN and PHASE around... To get your meaning to be correct, you have to ignore words in the rule, which you even admit you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister Agamemnon Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I know... you're right but sometimes it made you feel better lol.. and at least if you knew they might acknowledge *Hey we're getting this question a lot*... maybe this would be in the front burner for FAQ instead of some of the other Dumbarse bull puckey they FAQ and Errata lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister Agamemnon Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Hey I am bad at forums.. how do I start a Fresh Topic? I want to start a fun FAQ and Errata Thread lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister Agamemnon Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 To get your meaning to be correct, you have to ignore words in the rule, which you even admit you do. No you have to ignore words to read it another way... The statement of Movement Phase is only referring to the movement itself... per the rules of sentence structure and composition.. you have to ignore words for the movement phase statement to jump over the movement and refer to the Disembark/Embark or you have to have a comma, or semi-colon or something that links the statement at the end of the sentence to include both the start and middle of the sentence... And I never said I ignore words lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 despite the word PHASE and THAT I don't think wears off till your next turn. Right here, you are ignoring Phase and That. Something that happens in "that movement phase" doesn't happen in other phases. Once the movement phase ends, the condition ends. Of course, this has gotten circular. Its clear you are not going to accept anything less than an official GW FAQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister Agamemnon Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I didn't say I ignore Phase and Turn... but are they seperate things? *rhetorical* because there are severals spots in the book where they mix them back and forth without the meaning changing.. The first 2 paragraphs on movement in the movement section switchs from one to the other without a change in meaning... That is what I meant by that... No you are correct I won't and this particular rules question is going on in several different threads without agreement in any of them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think we all need to step back and reassess this topic and refrain from diving in with confrontational remarks that might (probably will) rub people up the wrong way, or by derailing through off-topic outbursts or introducing side issues. I'm totally lost for one and I suspect many others are too ;). Can we keep it clean, calm AND on track or it will be closed. Cheers I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 1No I am reading correctly.. the MOVEMENT PHASE refers to the MOVEMENT not the Disembark/Embark... 2If what your saying is correct it would read " You may not disembark or embark in the movement phase if you moved or are going to flat out " 3Or it flips back to my original comment if the condition wears off that you can't after your movement phase then you can disembark in the opponent phase because the can't has worn off and if it's no longer a can't you can... 4It's either all or nothing... You either can't till the condition wears off which despite the word PHASE and THAT 5 I don't think wears off till your next turn.. and there are several times in this book where they switch the word TURN and PHASE around... 6I mean I'd love to hear some other examples of effects that wear off in the same phase they are made *without specific notes saying they end that phase*... Which this rule doesn't have any clearity in regards to that.. hence this arguement Well, lets see here. This seems to be a good summary of your argument, so here is my rebuttal. 1) There is no disembark/embark phase. 2) That is in fact functionally identical to what the rule book says. 3) There is nothing in the rules that allows you to disembark, or do any voluntairy movement, in your opponents movement phase. 4) Its very much all or nothing- ALL of the PHASE. 5) "I don't think wears off till your next turn..." it doesnt matter if you think it, you need to be able to site an actual in the book wording that supports it. Saying you disagree with the rule doesnt make your interpretation accurate, it means you want to make a house rule. 6) Unnecessary. The rule is quite specific about when the conflict arrises- that movement phase- but if you really must: Chaplains Litanies of Hate comes immediately to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlameAnvil Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Here is a fluffy solution to the problem at hand. If you are moving 'REALLY!' fast, you would put on all the restraints you could. So, it takes to long for you to remove your harness to disembark. (Fast move no disembark). Well if your tank gets the tred, grav-plate, or warp based propulsion...ect; blown off.( and you have no guns, so it is a wreck for game play) You would then take your harness off and disembark. So...why could you not disembark? You could have a house rule: the uint takes d3 or d6 wounds not sure what one to use (the smoke and fire from the werck) with no armor save, but you may take an invul save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.