Destroyed Transport Vehicle

[dswanick]

Well Morticon pretty much closed this argument up, but does anyone feel this isnt RAI? They way we interpretted it (and are hoping the way it was supposed to work) was if your vehicle i destroyed in any ways (wrecked or blew up) you can't assault in your following turn. If it was an assault vehicle you can.

i understand RAW is different but it all feels to me like a case of improper wording.

Except, for this in the BRB :

Also, the table 'Transport Vehicles and their Passengers' on p426 has under Explodes

...must disembark, but is limited to a 3" move, then take a Pinning test.

 

Seems that they managed to close that loophole pretty good actually.

So while the main rules section may appear to allow a loophole through which a unit can Assault after being ejected from an Exploding transport, the above quote shows that GW meant that all manner of leaving a Destroyed transport is, in fact, a Disembark movement and therefore trying to claim an Assault after your transport Explodes is poor sportsmanship.

[Seahawk]

Also, the table 'Transport Vehicles and their Passengers' on p426 has under Explodes

...must disembark, but is limited to a 3" move, then take a Pinning test.

 

Seems that they managed to close that loophole pretty good actually.

So while the main rules section may appear to allow a loophole through which a unit can Assault after being ejected from an Exploding transport, the above quote shows that GW meant that all manner of leaving a Destroyed transport is, in fact, a Disembark movement and therefore trying to claim an Assault after your transport Explodes is poor sportsmanship.

But...that's totally wrong. The rule clearly says:

 

"Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be." (p.80)

 

not

 

"The passengers must immediately disembark in the usual manner, save that they must end their move wholly within 3"."

 

 

The summary on page 426 is a colossal error that needs to be changed; either that, or the actual rules on page 80 are a colossal error and need to be changed. Pick one. I choose to go with the fully explained rules that say you don't move, rather than the summary that says you move. Summary pages have been wrong before...

[ShinyRhino]

This has come up at our FLGS as well, and RAW we came to the same conclusion as Morticon. People don't LIKE it, but it is RAW. The conflict between the summary and the full rules page is vexing, no doubt. On general principle, I'd go with the full rules description. To do otherwise opens the gate for that annoying flakk missile debate, or the idea that non-Vanilla Marines don't have access to Rhinos and GK armies don't have access to Chimeras.

 

All will be laid to rest when GW kicks out the BRB FAQ. *checks watch*

[dswanick]

The summary on page 426 is a colossal error that needs to be changed; either that, or the actual rules on page 80 are a colossal error and need to be changed. Pick one. I choose to go with the fully explained rules that say you don't move, rather than the summary that says you move. Summary pages have been wrong before...

And given those two choices of colossal error - which makes more sense :

That a unit can't Assault when its transport is Destroyed - Wrecked or even when Disembarking from a fully-functional one, but can when it is Destroyed - Explodes?

- or -

That a unit can't Assault when its transport is Destroyed?

 

I mean, reallly? Having ones transport blown into a million pieces is advantageous to the embarked unit? :)

I'll take a copy/paste error on Pg.80, over that kind of insanity...

 

This has come up at our FLGS as well, and RAW we came to the same conclusion as Morticon. People don't LIKE it, but it is RAW.

But so is the summary later in the book - Rule As Written.

That the two instances of the written rule are in conflict doesn't open up any other cans of worms as you describe. It simply requires a bit of common sense.

 

- Edit - After typing this I had a mental image of Marines filling every spare space of their Rhino with cans of explosive petrochemicals in the hopes that an errant round will cause the thing to Explode, sending Power Armored bodies flying through the air towards their opponents. Maybe a unit that Assaults after their Transport Explodes should get the Hammer of Wrath USR... :lol:

[Seahawk]

My common sense says they were blown clear and ready to fight, while a neutralized transport forces the occupants to struggle out mangled doors, going real slow.

 

So yea, it does make more sense to follow the RAW on page 80. :)

[BigDunc]

My common sense says they were blown clear and ready to fight, while a neutralized transport forces the occupants to struggle out mangled doors, going real slow.

 

So yea, it does make more sense to follow the RAW on page 80.

Having been the target of high explosive roadside bombs, I completely disagree with you.

 

 

The summary on page 426 is a colossal error that needs to be changed; either that, or the actual rules on page 80 are a colossal error and need to be changed. Pick one. I choose to go with the fully explained rules that say you don't move, rather than the summary that says you move. Summary pages have been wrong before...

Neither page has an error. The rules on pg80 and the rules on pg426 do not conflict with each other, therefore a player can abide by the Explodes! rule from both pages without any issues being created. Since there is no conflict, we are not allowed to choose. We just follow both pages. Pg80 describes where the unit is placed and pg426 calls this placement a disembarkation and allows 3" of movement. Both pages describe hits that the unit takes, but there still isn't a conflict.

 

The simple fact is, the Explodes! rules, as written, states that disembarkation is the result.

[thade]

I'm not sure sure that the RAI here would be to allow, for instance, marines who were in a Rhino but blown out of it to assault the following turn. How can they be unable to charge after disembarking from a Rhino normally (which is something they get to plan out and have practiced) but then be able to charge out of a flaming, smoking wreck that exploded around them and maybe killed or wounded one or more occupants?

 

The RAW - as demonstrated by Seahawk and others - is bulletproof, so there it is.

[ShinyRhino]

This is one of those rules issues that won't be resolved without an FAQ. While the two versions of the same rule might not contradict one another, they certainly aren't identical. You'll have one side arguing that because the full rules are published on p80, you use those. You'll have another say that the summary is correct because it has more to it (which seems odd, since a summary...summarizes, it doesn't add additional info!).

It's a big, fat Grey Area Rule that we'll all have toplay nice and decide upon on a per-game, per-opponent situation.

[dswanick]

The RAW - as demonstrated by Seahawk and others - is bulletproof, so there it is.

You must have an odd definition of "bulletproof", thade. As the rules are written in two places in the BRB and those two places have different information, and lead to different (and mutually exclusive) potentially correct RAW answers... ;)

[Axagoras]

And this is why I dont run transports any more, rhinos are near useless for marines.

[BigDunc]

The RAW - as demonstrated by Seahawk and others - is bulletproof, so there it is.

Bulletproof? Only against non-stubborn penetrating rounds.

 

Here's what's so ironic about the whole RAW vs RAI thing.

 

Those who [claim RAW and] argue that units can assault after a vehicle Explodes! are ignoring what is written on pg426, and their justification for this is RAI (ie, the summary is intended to summarize rules and cannot establish new ones or alter old rules). There is nothing in the rulebook that states the summary cannot introduce new rules or alter previous rules.

 

In order to claim the power of RAW!, your entire argument must be RAW, not just the parts that are most convenient, and since nothing is written that allows pg80 to take precedence over pg426, and since the two pages do not conflict, we have to follow both pages.

 

 

The summary pages do already alter some existing rules that are not covered anywhere else in the rulebook, codices, or FAQs. And the best example is, only in the summary are Paladins and Nobz designated as characters.

 

Addition:

While the two versions of the same rule might not contradict one another, they certainly aren't identical.

They don't have to be identical. Nor do they have to be in the same place. Lack of convenience is not justification for ignoring parts of the rules, or how those rules relate to each other.

 

You'll have one side arguing that because the full rules are published on p80, you use those.

Actually, they'd have to argue first that the full rules are in fact contained within pg80. You can't assume what you're trying to conclude, it's called begging the question.

[nurglez]

Just a quick thought about "their subsequent Assault phase".

 

Unit A's vehicle explodes or is wrecked, so they cannot assault next turn.

Unit B's vehicle explodes or is wrecked, and they are then assaulted by the enemy, fight them off. In their next turn can they assault? as they have fought in an assault phase, was it "their subsequent assault phase" ?

[thade]

Interesting point. Does this book (like the last one) make the point that models which are still in BtB with an enemy vehicle in their opponent's assault phase can still take their attacks against it? If so, it's good to note that it's definitively not their (the controller's) assault phase being referred to.

 

"Their" in this case does seem to imply "the controlling player's assault phase".

 

No BRB on hand at work, though, so I can't reference this myself at this time.

[Seahawk]

There are references to one person's turn "claiming" a phase. Regrouping (p.31), various psychic powers (p.68), and Successive Turns (p.76), for instance. I think it's safe to say that it is independent of being assaulted. Good thought though!

 

Those who [claim RAW and] argue that units can assault after a vehicle Explodes! are ignoring what is written on pg426

And those who claim otherwise are ignoring what's written on page 80. Heck, the chart even says to go to page 80 to see what happens.

 

since the two pages do not conflict, we have to follow both pages

But they do conflict. One says they get placed, the other says to disembark. Okay, from where? The vehicle was removed from the table, so where are the models disembarking from? There's nothing there from which to do that action, so it can't happen and the rule is wrong. This is the order:

 

Explodes!

1. Resolve blast radius and wounds on exterior units.

2. Remove vehicle from table, replace with crater.

3. Resolve wounds on interior unit.

4. Place unit in crater/disembark from thin air.

 

 

And the best example is, only in the summary are Paladins and Nobz designated as characters.

Terrible example. Every single unit in the game got a designation, not just Paladins and Nobz. It's an overarching rules change that applies to all, and it is displayed as such, with no other conflict with the rest of the BRB, codexes, or FAQs.

 

The transport rules are mutually exclusive to each page and in conflict. I mean, if you want to follow through with that chart, you're saying you don't have to disembark from the wrecked transport? Because the 2nd column allows you to fire snap shots if you are firing from the vehicle, even though it should say N/A.

[BigDunc]

And those who claim otherwise are ignoring what's written on page 80. Heck, the chart even says to go to page 80 to see what happens.

 

But they do conflict. One says they get placed, the other says to disembark. Okay, from where? The vehicle was removed from the table, so where are the models disembarking from? There's nothing there from which to do that action, so it can't happen and the rule is wrong.

Lol, nothing is being ignored.

 

The process for any disembarkation requires the placing of a model near an access point and measuring a certain distance (up to 3" or 6", respectively). The Explodes result is no different, except, since there is no access point to place near the question rightly becomes "where do I place my models?" Or as you put it, "from where?" Well, pg80 gives us the answer. After you remove the vehicle and there is no place to disembark from, pg80 tells us that models are placed in the crater. Answer solved. And everything is accounted for.

 

Too easy.

 

One says they get placed, the other says to disembark.

There's no problem with this whatsoever because the disembarkation rules involve a 'placement' step and the Transport rules on pg79 actually use the word 'place.' I think you're trying to suggest that pg80's usage of 'are placed' is some special term with sanctimonious meaning, and it's not.... it's just the first thing you do when you disembark.

 

There is no conflict. There is no error.

 

The transport rules are mutually exclusive to each page and in conflict. I mean, if you want to follow through with that chart, you're saying you don't have to disembark from the wrecked transport?

Umm, the pg426 chart? It says "must disembark." Are you talking about another chart?

 

Because the 2nd column allows you to fire snap shots if you are firing from the vehicle, even though it should say N/A.

Are you suggesting that the Explodes line from pg426 is wrong because another line on the same chart is wrong? Seriously? Do I really have to explain to a long time OR frequenter how fallacious such an argument is?

[Acebaur]

Ok, I think I can settle this wrecked/explodes debate with 4 words(hopefully :confused: )

 

As bigdunc pointed out

 

BGB, pg78:

 

EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING

"However, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed."

 

What no one else has quoted thus far is under the damage table on 74. The first sentence after the italicized fluff is "The vehicle is destroyed"

 

So because they can be forced to disembark if the transport is destroyed which the damage results table tells us an Explodes! result causes, then they cannot assault in their subsequent assault phase because they disembarked that turn.

[rpnightsend]

Ok, I think I can settle this wrecked/explodes debate with 4 words(hopefully :) )

 

As bigdunc pointed out

 

BGB, pg78:

 

EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING

"However, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed."

 

What no one else has quoted thus far is under the damage table on 74. The first sentence after the italicized fluff is "The vehicle is destroyed"

 

So because they can be forced to disembark if the transport is destroyed which the damage results table tells us an Explodes! result causes, then they cannot assault in their subsequent assault phase because they disembarked that turn.

Oh wow. I hadn't noticed that. Sounds like that much actually resolve it.... probably wishful thinking on my part

[Morticon]

sadly not guys.

 

This has already been quoted, referenced and then debunked by myself.

 

This rule uses the word "destroyed" not exploded or wrecked - a wrecked vehicle will satisfy the conditions for this rule.

 

EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING

"However, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed."

 

EG: In conjunction with pg80 etc, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is wrecked.

[dswanick]

This rule uses the word "destroyed" not exploded or wrecked - a wrecked vehicle will satisfy the conditions for this rule.

So which damage resilt on the Vehicle Damage Table is "Destroyed", again? Cause I can't seem to find it.

 

de·stroy - verb - \di-ˈstroi, dē-\

transitive verb

 

1: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also: to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>

2 a: to put out of existence : kill <destroy an injured horse> b: neutralize <the moon destroys the light of the stars> c: annihilate, vanquish <armies had been crippled but not destroyed— W. L. Shirer>

Synonyms: annihilate, cream, decimate, demolish, desolate, devastate, do in, explode, extinguish, nuke, pull down, pulverize, raze, rub out, ruin, shatter, smash, tear down, total, vaporize, waste, wrack, wreck

[BigDunc]

Morticon, I really dont see how Wrecked satisfies the condition and Explodes does not.

 

In fact, it might be the case that you have your conditioning backwards. Destroyed is a necessary condition of both Wrecked and Explodes. In order to be Wrecked, the vehicle must be Destroyed. And also for Explodes, the vehicle must be Destroyed.

 

What youre saying is, an exploded vehicle is not destroyed, and that just doesnt make sense.

[eyeslikethunder]

Ok both wreck and explode are synonyms

 

This rule uses the word "destroyed" not exploded or wrecked - a wrecked vehicle will satisfy the conditions for this rule.

So which damage resilt on the Vehicle Damage Table is "Destroyed", again? Cause I can't seem to find it.

 

de·stroy - verb - \di-ˈstroi, dē-\

transitive verb

 

1: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also: to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>

2 a: to put out of existence : kill <destroy an injured horse> b: neutralize <the moon destroys the light of the stars> c: annihilate, vanquish <armies had been crippled but not destroyed— W. L. Shirer>

Synonyms: annihilate, cream, decimate, demolish, desolate, devastate, do in, explode, extinguish, nuke, pull down, pulverize, raze, rub out, ruin, shatter, smash, tear down, total, vaporize, waste, wrack, wreck

 

[Acebaur]

So which damage resilt on the Vehicle Damage Table is "Destroyed", again? Cause I can't seem to find it.

 

Really? I just quoted it for you. Under explodes, it says "The vehicle is destroyed"

 

This rule uses the word "destroyed" not exploded or wrecked - a wrecked vehicle will satisfy the conditions for this rule.

 

So does Exploded, see above.

 

 

The fact is you guys are picking at semantics here. Wrecked and explodes both mean the vehicle is destroyed. Otherwise, exploded vehicles can carry on as normal since they aren't "destroyed"

[dswanick]

So which damage resilt on the Vehicle Damage Table is "Destroyed", again? Cause I can't seem to find it.

 

Really? I just quoted it for you. Under explodes, it says "The vehicle is destroyed"

 

This rule uses the word "destroyed" not exploded or wrecked - a wrecked vehicle will satisfy the conditions for this rule.

 

So does Exploded, see above.

 

 

The fact is you guys are picking at semantics here. Wrecked and explodes both mean the vehicle is destroyed. Otherwise, exploded vehicles can carry on as normal since they aren't "destroyed"

Slow up there Ace. I'm in agreement with you (I think). I was responding to Mort's statement :

EG: In conjunction with pg80 etc, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is wrecked.

indicating that 'Wrecked' forced a 'Disembark' preventing the Assault, but 'Explodes' does not.

[Acebaur]

Ah I see it now. I guess I only looked at your statement and not the quote you had above it. Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh there, wasn't my intention ;)

[Morticon]

Morticon, I really dont see how Wrecked satisfies the condition and Explodes does not.

 

In fact, it might be the case that you have your conditioning backwards. Destroyed is a necessary condition of both Wrecked and Explodes. In order to be Wrecked, the vehicle must be Destroyed. And also for Explodes, the vehicle must be Destroyed.

 

What youre saying is, an exploded vehicle is not destroyed, and that just doesnt make sense.

 

 

Thats not what im saying- or at least not what I am trying to say, so if it seemed that way- entirely my bad.

 

I wasn't saying that it does not satisfy the condition. I was saying that by virtue of the "wrecked" result alone satisfying the condition for that rule, we cant hold "explodes" as a necessary condition for the rule to be validated as a condition has already been met that fulfills it.

 

Ill try expand:

"However, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed."

 

People are arguing that this rule therefore means that BOTH destroyed results (wrecked + explodes) mean that they disembark.

 

I am maintaining that this rule is exemplary, rather than definitive or exhaustive and only one of the destroyed conditions (in this case "wrecked") need to meet the rule's criteria to validate its existence. The rule quoted is an example of what happens when an embarked unit has their transport destroyed. It doesn't say "wrecked" or "explodes" so it would stand that only one of those two results need to meet the conditions of "destroyed" in order for that rule to have credence. Because wrecked is a subset of destroyed, just that one condition is a necessity to be met.

In short, just the one result justifies the existence of that rule.

 

I'm not saying "explodes" doesn't meet it.

I'm merely saying it doesn't need to if one of the results already validates the rule.

 

Does that make sense? :) ...no ..really.... does it?? :unsure:

 

In my mind->

 

1* Vehicles can be "wrecked" or "exploded"

2* Usually, if a vehicle is "wrecked" it's occupants disembark.

3* Occupants "can be forced" to disembark if a vehicle is destroyed.

-> And they are! When it's "wrecked" - but not necessarily when it's exploded.

(So, where a "wrecked" result comes up, occupants being forced to disembark from it validate the rule).

 

 

This is my view of the relationship: (note- this is not a "Venn" in the true sense, just a graphic representation of how im seeing the rules)

http://i1206.photobucket.com/albums/bb447/Brindleysa/Dork%20Stuff-%20Fun%20Stuff/Untitled.jpg

 

So, where a vehicle is destroyed, it can either be wrecked or exploded.

If its wrecked, then occupants can be forced to disembark (which is still a "subset" within destroyed)

 

 

The way I see you guys arguing it is that the "forced to disembark" circle is as big as the "destroyed" circle, which is not what I think the rule is saying at all.

 

Can you let me know where i'm going wrong?