Passenger deployment

[UreeL]

If a vehicle explodes (so a 6 on the damage table) how do you deploy the surviving passengers?

 

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a268/UreeL/rhinoexplodes.png

Are both deployments legal? Or do you have to do it like the left side example? (the rectangle is the footprint of the exploded vehicle)

 

This 'problem' occured when I wanted to prevent my opponent from charging me with his avatar... :D

[Spacefrisian]

Page 67 says passengers are placed where vehicle used to be, so only the left one is legal as the right one has 1 model outside the vehicle.

 

Be aware that their are also peeps out their that say that if you dont have a crater they wont need to test for terrain, in regards of them charging you.

[UreeL]

I have some craters, so that won't be a problem :D

 

That one model outside the rectangle is just some sloppy fast drawing mistake... If I were to move it so that it's base is also just a bit inside the rectangle, is the right hand side then also a legal deployment?

[Seahawk]

Still, only the left one is legal because they must be placed where the vehicle was. The vehicle has certain dimensions, and all models must fit within those dimensions or die. No model can be outside those dimensions in any capacity

[DarkGuard]

With craters being used would this not be harder? I know that in my gaming group if we are lucky enough to have some craters spare we deploy them in the crater, not quite RAW but seems logical.

[JamesI]

With craters being used would this not be harder? I know that in my gaming group if we are lucky enough to have some craters spare we deploy them in the crater, not quite RAW but seems logical.

I have some vehicle craters that are basically the exact size of a Rhino sized vehcile. Makes it easy to deal with.

 

But yes, most places I've been just put down a crater and deploy into the Crater.

[Johnnyb79]

Sorry to hijack a bit here but if you dont use a crater (I have never played like this so it has never come up) do you still have to do a difficult terrain to assault/move away from the removed vehicle?

[UreeL]

Yes you do, it is written in the rules that the footprint of the exploded vehicle is now difficult terrain.

 

A very easy solution, great idea by a club member, is to just take some pieces of cardboard the same size as the vehicle and draw (or print) a crater/explosion/debrie on it. Very clear, easy to deploy on, no discussion possible :-D

[dswanick]

Still, only the left one is legal because they must be placed where the vehicle was. The vehicle has certain dimensions, and all models must fit within those dimensions or die. No model can be outside those dimensions in any capacity

I disagree with this statement. In all other situations having a sliver of a models base is good enough. Disembarking/Embarking within 2" of an access point - if a sliver of the base is in the area, the model is legally within the area. Shooting - if a sliver of the base is within range, the whole of the model is deamed within range. I see no reason that in this instance the basic mechanic would be different. So long as a sliver of all of the model's bases are within the area defined by the vehicle's footprint - the models are placed properly for purposes of the Destroyed - Explodes result.

 

Sorry to hijack a bit here but if you dont use a crater (I have never played like this so it has never come up) do you still have to do a difficult terrain to assault/move away from the removed vehicle?

Yes you do, it is written in the rules that the footprint of the exploded vehicle is now difficult terrain.

 

A very easy solution, great idea by a club member, is to just take some pieces of cardboard the same size as the vehicle and draw (or print) a crater/explosion/debrie on it. Very clear, easy to deploy on, no discussion possible :-D

I disagree. The rules for Exploded vehicle creating an area of Difficult Terrain specify that it happens only if you have an appropriate piece of terrain.

 

"6 Destroyed - Explodes The vehicle is destroyed, as its fuel and ammo detonate, ripping it apart in a spectacular explosion. Flaming debris is scattered d6 " from the vehicle, and models in range suffer a Strength 3, AP- hit. The vehicle is then removed and is replaced with an area of difficult ground representing scattered wreckage or a crater (if you have one)." - BRB, Pg.61

 

That said, how hard is it to have a vehicle-sized crater for your vehicle models? If you don't you could always grab a piece of paper and tear it into a rough circle.

[Spacefrisian]

A guy at out LGS just uses fantasy trays with the exact same size of a rhino hull as craters. Shouldnt be a problem in that case in regards to dimensions.

[DarkGuard]

Sorry to hijack a bit here but if you dont use a crater (I have never played like this so it has never come up) do you still have to do a difficult terrain to assault/move away from the removed vehicle?

 

I agree with dswanick about this. If you have a crater or suitable piece of terrain then you put it down. But if you don't have it then don't use it. I don't want to sit there imagining a piece of terrain that isn't there. Call it a reward for remembering to bring a crater with them.

[Seahawk]

On the other hand, someone I knew refused to place craters so that he wouldn't have to take the DT tests and thus move faster after getting 'sploded.

 

Modeling for advantage?

[awfulawful]

On the other hand, someone I knew refused to place craters so that he wouldn't have to take the DT tests and thus move faster after getting 'sploded.

 

Modeling for advantage?

 

Breaking the rules for advantage.

[dswanick]

On the other hand, someone I knew refused to place craters so that he wouldn't have to take the DT tests and thus move faster after getting 'sploded.

 

Modeling for advantage?

Cad - "Hey, you blew up my Rhino. Aww, I don't have a crater so I guess I'm not in Difficult Terrain" (Aww, I get to move the full 6" away on my turn...)

Me - "It's OK, I happen to have a few extras right here in my vehicle transport bag. Your welcome." (Aww, you don't get to move the full 6", and you're not gonna be able to blow up all my vehicles anyway...)

 

But, yeah, refusing to place craters when available is obnoxious.

[DarkGuard]

On the other hand, someone I knew refused to place craters so that he wouldn't have to take the DT tests and thus move faster after getting 'sploded.

 

Modeling for advantage?

 

Breaking the rules for advantage.

 

Agreed. If you have them, you place them. If you don't have them, or run out, you don't. Of course, I suppose this could be a bit of a slippery slope with some people purposefully not making them.

[ShinyRhino]

On the other hand, someone I knew refused to place craters so that he wouldn't have to take the DT tests and thus move faster after getting 'sploded.

 

Modeling for advantage?

 

Breaking the rules for advantage.

 

Agreed. If you have them, you place them. If you don't have them, or run out, you don't. Of course, I suppose this could be a bit of a slippery slope with some people purposefully not making them.

 

That's essentially "forgetting" the rules to one's own advantage. It's also one of the reasons my FLGS received a big box of felt-sheet markers for craters of various sizes from yself and another gamer. Cost us less than $10 and we have enough craters for a 20-person tournament.

[breng77]

most people just use markers to mark the corners of the crater (dice or other tokens), the idea that if you don't have a crater you don't place one is too easy to game. Most times the crater is not all that great for the unit that was in the vehicle (sure it grants cover but rolling to get out of it can be a pain, as can driving vehicles through the crater. If you asked me what I would prefer I would rather not place a crater, so I would not bring one, so I could move unimpeded.

 

Sure you can try to bring enough for 2 but what happens when you run out?

 

NOw i always place a marker for the craters of exploded vehciles, and will probably end up making vehicle sized crater markers at some point, but I don't currently have any which means that I would not need to place craters unless they are available? Consistency is best.

[DarkGuard]

But is the marker a piece of terrain? It says to place difficult terrain, not markers mapping out invisible terrain. So is that "gaming for advantage"?

 

There are good and bad sides to the crater. On the good side you get area cover of 4+, quite handy. Also bear in mind that against combat units without assault grenades they go down to I1, very annoying for Tyranids among many others, and a massive advantage for the unit inside. Pinning of course negates that but with high Ld it doesn't tend to happen much.

 

On the flip side, difficult terrain tests. I think that's about it. Sure it can be hard getting out, but you have the run movement to get out. Oh, and units attempting to assault them also have to take the difficult terrain test.

 

IMO, not having the craters or difficult terrain is actually a disadvantage for the player who lost the transport. I'd much rather have my opponent in the open and susceptible to assaults or low AP weapons then in cover where they are protected by them.

[breng77]

Actually the way I read the rule it says that he vehicle is always replaced with an area of difficult terrain. But may use a crater if you have one. That said there are plenty of other negatives to craters. Especially for mech armies. Having to either chance immobilizing vehicles in said terrain or drive around is a big disadvantage. To me any other interpretation would be unfair unless you require every player build craters for the game.

[maturin]

Easy way around no crater: place small dice around the borders of the vehicle before you remove it. 6 dice outlines a rhino nicely, you might need 8 for a Land Raider. Voila - your area of difficult terrain defined easily with materials we all have on hand!

 

While you might call this a house rule, it's easily applicable and I would hope no reasonable person would refuse its use.

[DarkGuard]

Then someone picks up the dice and rolls them, or they get nudged a bit out of the way. And normally I find that once the unit has left that piece of dice/imaginative terrain people tend to conveniently forget all about it, I'm pretty sure that's gaming for advantage!

 

It can work, I agree, but it's hardly foolproof.

[maturin]

Then someone picks up the dice and rolls them, or they get nudged a bit out of the way. And normally I find that once the unit has left that piece of dice/imaginative terrain people tend to conveniently forget all about it, I'm pretty sure that's gaming for advantage!

 

It can work, I agree, but it's hardly foolproof.

 

True enough, and there's no question that actual craters are superior in both game terms and in terms of creating a nice-looking game board.

 

But I think that having the option to use dice is better than leaving players with the option suggested earlier in the thread - namely ignoring the difficult terrain rule for lack of a crater. Yes, it's subject to human error (or intentional malfeasance) but then again so is the entire game. To me, "conveniently forgetting" about imaginary terrain falls into the same category as slow playing, picking up your "hit" dice, or loose measuring - all things you must be on the lookout for, all the time.

[breng77]

That is why I always mark mine with dice that no one will pick up and roll (same for dice I use as wound counters.). I always use D4. THe bumped argument is no more valid for dice than any piece of terrain that gets bumped during the game.

[CaptinLoken]

A stack of INdex cards ... is about all you need and a crafty artistic hand... should do the trick....

[DarkGuard]

That is why I always mark mine with dice that no one will pick up and roll (same for dice I use as wound counters.). I always use D4. THe bumped argument is no more valid for dice than any piece of terrain that gets bumped during the game.

 

Arguably it is. Terrain pieces tend to be stuck onto bases, or at least built in a way such that their dimensions cannot change. Craters are the same. Dice circles or squares aren't. Bump them, and when put back to where they could be the square could be bigger and smaller.

 

Not meaning to be difficult, just playing devils advocate. :)

 

Personally, I subscribe to the "no crater, no cover" argument. However, if one would insist on using die etc then I'd follow it.

 

However, one example from a game earlier. I blew up a Razorback, and the player then put his unit in the shadow of the vehicle. We had no craters so he didn't put one there, neither did he put any dice there, so effectively open terrain. Later on in that turn I destroyed a Land Speeder. So the vehicle became a wreck. He put the flying stand by his deployment zone, and then changed his mind, putting it where his Razorback had been, and shifting the unit onto it, adorning the base with a heavy bolter from the Razorback. Now I didn't really care, it didn't make much impact, but what if I had chosen to shoot say a low AP weapon at that unit before destroying the Land Speeder (not that I could, was playing Nids with no Zoanthropes)? Would he have taken the save from his imaginary circle of terrain? Or taken the hit? But then after destroying the Land Speeder, he would have then tried to claim cover with the base if I shot again later. Later I blew up a Vindicator, and as with the Razorback at first, he didn't put anything down, no marker, no dice, nothing. Would he have tried to add terrain in there later, or forced me to roll when going through his imaginary line?

 

So rocky ground there. As I said it made little difference, and I didn't mind too much with him putting the terrain in later, but I do feel that some people can intentionally and unintentionally abuse it in both ways.