Shaken/stunned and effects on a disembarking unit

[Brother-Captain Stacius]

Ok, after looking through the rule book after an intensely close game, my opponent and I wondered about an issue. The effects of penetrating hits on passengers. So, let's say you pen and roll a 2, meaning the passengers can only fire snap shots in their next turn. On that turn they disembark. How do they shoot? Lol after reading the rules we believe that they can only fire snap shots as, just through getting out of the vehicle, they would not suddenly regain their senses enough to fire at full effect.

Our theory is at the start of their turn they were and are passengers, so for that shooting phase they suffer the snap shots only drawback.

[Seahawk]

Nope, been doing it wrong. When disembarked they shoot as normal.

[BigDunc]

pg80, "Effect of Damage on Passengers"

 

"Crew Shaken. Passengers can only make Snap Shots in their next Shooting phase, but are otherwise unaffected." And there's similar wording for Crew Stunned.

 

You're playing it right.

[LoreDraconis]

Yeah, I agree with the snapshot result sticking even after disembarking. That was not the case last edition, but that seems to have changed according to how the rules are worded.

 

Imo, it makes sense from a gameplay perspective as well. If the impact of the hit stunned your unit, I don't see a logical reason why you would suddenly shake that when you disembark. From a balance perspective, vehicle effects only occur on a Pen now, so applying a continuous effect on the squad is not as terrible as it would have been under last edition.

[Acebaur]

pg80, "Effect of Damage on Passengers"

 

"Crew Shaken. Passengers can only make Snap Shots in their next Shooting phase, but are otherwise unaffected." And there's similar wording for Crew Stunned.

 

You're playing it right.

 

 

Except that they are no longer passengers by the next shooting phase. I think they would shoot as normal(counting as moving of course)

[Seahawk]

That's what the all-important summary in the back of the book says: only affected if shooting from the transport. :confused:

[BigDunc]

Except that they are no longer passengers by the next shooting phase. I think they would shoot as normal(counting as moving of course)

The question is, does the passenger unit take 'ownership' of the shaken/stunned result?

 

If not, then I think you'd be right.

 

But I think "When a transport sustains damage, it can also have an effect on its passengers..." shows that the unit does take ownership of a shaken/stunned result in addition to an effect on the transport. The unit 'owns' the shaken/stunned result and cannot 'shake it off' when it disembarks.

 

That's what the all-important summary in the back of the book says: only affected if shooting from the transport.

Only? No. You're throwing in an 'if and only if' biconditional where one doesn't exist. The 'summary' chart shows how current passengers are affected. Doing so does not exclude disembarked units from being effected by damage results; their effects are simply not stated in the summary.

[Seahawk]

Okay, when a rules question involves something called a biconditional, one is looking way too much into it.

 

The effects on passengers are clearly stated in the summary. The effects on non-passengers is also clearly stated in the third column, under "Other Effects", which is "None". There are no additional effects whatsoever, so disembarked passengers do not suffer any ill effects that their transport did.

[BigDunc]

Okay, when a rules question involves something called a biconditional, one is looking way too much into it.

My bad. I totally forgot that here on B&C 'RAW is king' and logic isn't necessary.

 

The effects on non-passengers is also clearly stated in the third column, under "Other Effects", which is "None".

"Other effects" points to non-shooting related effects, such as movement restrictions, pinning checks, or taking hits (as you can see with the Wrecked and Destroyed entries in the "other effects" column). So, how is it exactly that non-shooting effects encompass the shooting capabilities of disembarked unit?

[Morollan]

I'm with BigDunc on this. I don't see anything in the rules that removes the effects on passengers when they disembark. The wording is "Crew Shaken. Passengers can only make Snap Shots in their next Shooting phase, but are otherwise unaffected." As long as a unit is a passenger in the transport when the Crew Shaken result is suffered then they can't shoot in their next shooting phase, regardless of whether they disembark or not.

[Brother-Captain Stacius]

I have to be honest we have been playing it as when they disembark they shoot as normal. But re reading it and noting the wording we have started to implement snap shots only. It feels right to us butcan be left open for either point. Grrrr FAQ please gw!

[Seahawk]

"Other effects" points to non-shooting related effects, such as movement restrictions, pinning checks, or taking hits (as you can see with the Wrecked and Destroyed entries in the "other effects" column). So, how is it exactly that non-shooting effects encompass the shooting capabilities of disembarked unit?

I disagree. "Other effects" means "any other effects" because there is no limiter, otherwise it would say "Non-shooting related effects". It just so happens that the only things described are what you see there. Could it affect external shooting? Sure, if it said that it does. It doesn't say external shooting is affected though, so it is not. It has two instances of saying what happens to the unit being transported/shooting from the vehicle, and nothing about non-passengers. The effects on passengers is limited to the period where they are aboard the transport, and that's it.

 

Personally I think they need to remove/rewrite that whole chart, because all it's done is cause problems.

[dswanick]

It doesn't say external shooting is affected though, so it is not. It has two instances of saying what happens to the unit being transported/shooting from the vehicle, and nothing about non-passengers.

Actually it does - by saying "in their next shooting phase" and not "in their next shooting phase, if still embarked" means that in their next shooting phase regardless of their embarkation status.

The effects on passengers is limited to the period where they are aboard the transport, and that's it.

Except that is directly contradicted by "in their next shooting phase". Without the above mentioned qualifier it is in their next shooting phase. Period, full stop. If the unit gets a next shooting phase, they are shooting Snap Shots.

[Seahawk]

Which is in contradiction to the all-powerful summary in the back. This is the same argument all over again as the "explodes" thread.

 

Either we go by what's written out the long way in the rules (which I advocate) or we follow the chart. They are in conflict in both cases.

[BigDunc]

I disagree. "Other effects" means "any other effects" because there is no limiter, otherwise it would say "Non-shooting related effects". It just so happens that the only things described are what you see there. Could it affect external shooting? Sure, if it said that it does. It doesn't say external shooting is affected though, so it is not. It has two instances of saying what happens to the unit being transported/shooting from the vehicle, and nothing about non-passengers. The effects on passengers is limited to the period where they are aboard the transport, and that's it.

 

Which is in contradiction to the all-powerful summary in the back. This is the same argument all over again as the "explodes" thread.

 

Either we go by what's written out the long way in the rules (which I advocate) or we follow the chart. They are in conflict in both cases.

But there is a limiter. It's just a logical one. It's already discussed shooting related effects, so "other effects" refers non-shooting related effects. Also, "other effects" simply refers to "but are otherwise unaffected" on pg80, and on pg80 I hope it's obvious that this line is talking about non-shooting related effects.

 

The summary isn't causing any problems. The problem is the majority of the 40k community has settled for RAW as the preferred interpretative method, and RAW is terrible. It's the weakest way to go about interpreting the rules, and when you use the weakest way, of course there's going to be problems. You get what you pay for.

[Azekai]

After reading through both this and the 'explodes' thread, I think that the 6th rules are rather pants, or at least their editing is. This stuff is clear as mud, and the fact that there is this much contention over the damage chart is just silly. RAW ends up being goofy (particularly in the case of explodes), while RAI ends up being shaky.

 

I think at the end of the day we just need to sit tight, and wait for that blasted FAQ.

[rpnightsend]

After reading through both this and the 'explodes' thread, I think that the 6th rules are rather pants, or at least their editing is. This stuff is clear as mud, and the fact that there is this much contention over the damage chart is just silly. RAW ends up being goofy (particularly in the case of explodes), while RAI ends up being shaky.

 

I think at the end of the day we just need to sit tight, and wait for that blasted FAQ.

Yes but not all of us are going to sit around and not play 40k until an FAQ comes out, and these problems do arise, so props to BigDunc, Seahawk, and everyone else trying to straighten these things out in the meantime.

I would agree with BigDunc here, if only because when there's something that's this much of a grey area or is this contested by the players, I would go with the most logical answer, which to me is that they snap fire when they disembark. When RAW fails us I think its important to remember we probably should've been considering RAI to begin with.

[Morticon]

After attempting to follow this thread, I need to ask:

 

How are we getting around the issue that Acebaur raised? "Passengers" may only snap fire in their next turn.

Once you are no longer a passenger, how are you attempting to argue that you are bound by this restriction?

 

Yes, you were a passenger at the beginning of the turn, but so what?

Nothing anywhere says that the unit may only snap fire- it says the passengers.

When it is time to fire, look at the unit. Are they passengers?

Yes? Then they can only snap fire if they were shaken/stunned.

No? Then why are you saying that because they once were passengers they can no longer do it? This is creating new rules -pure and simple.

[dswanick]

How are we getting around the issue that Acebaur raised? "Passengers" may only snap fire in their next turn.

Once you are no longer a passenger, how are you attempting to argue that you are bound by this restriction?

That's reading something into the rule which simply is not there.

 

Situation: A unit is a "passenger" when the transport suffers a Shaken/Stunned result.

The Passengers, therefore, suffer a Shaken/Stunned result as well.

The effect of the Shaken/Stunned result is that in their next turn they may only fire Snap Shots - "Passengers can only make Snap Shots in their next Shooting Phase,", BRB, Pg.80.

It does not say "Passengers can only make Snap Shots in their next Shooting Phase if they remain embarked...", which is how it would have to be worded to say what you and yours want it to say.

[BigDunc]

I second what dswanick said, because it's the key, and add to this point:

The Passengers, therefore, suffer a Shaken/Stunned result as well.

Pg80, "When a Transport sustains damage, it can also have an effect on its passengers..." The passengers receive a shaken/stunned effect at the same time as the transport. If you can explain how the unit shakes off this damage result, or that it doesn't receive the damage result in the first place, then you might have a chance.

 

When it is time to fire, look at the unit. Are they passengers?

This is the step, Morticon, that you're adding that doesn't exist because the pg80 rules have already told you that the unit's shooting is limited "in their next Shooting phase."

[Morticon]

I second what dswanick said, because it's the key, and add to this point:

The Passengers, therefore, suffer a Shaken/Stunned result as well.

Pg80, "When a Transport sustains damage, it can also have an effect on its passengers..." The passengers receive a shaken/stunned effect at the same time as the transport. If you can explain how the unit shakes off this damage result, or that it doesn't receive the damage result in the first place, then you might have a chance.

 

When it is time to fire, look at the unit. Are they passengers?

This is the step, Morticon, that you're adding that doesn't exist because the pg80 rules have already told you that the unit's shooting is limited "in their next Shooting phase."

 

But you're only quoting half of the rule.

Whose shooting is limited "in their next shooting phase" ?

The passengers.

If they're not passengers, then how can "their" shooting be duffed?

[dswanick]

I second what dswanick said, because it's the key, and add to this point:

The Passengers, therefore, suffer a Shaken/Stunned result as well.

Pg80, "When a Transport sustains damage, it can also have an effect on its passengers..." The passengers receive a shaken/stunned effect at the same time as the transport. If you can explain how the unit shakes off this damage result, or that it doesn't receive the damage result in the first place, then you might have a chance.

 

When it is time to fire, look at the unit. Are they passengers?

This is the step, Morticon, that you're adding that doesn't exist because the pg80 rules have already told you that the unit's shooting is limited "in their next Shooting phase."

 

But you're only quoting half of the rule.

Whose shooting is limited "in their next shooting phase" ?

The passengers.

If they're not passengers, then how can "their" shooting be duffed?

Because they were passengers when the status took effect on the unit. That they later disembarked is not relevant to the rule.

[BigDunc]

But you're only quoting half of the rule.

Whose shooting is limited "in their next shooting phase" ?

The passengers.

If they're not passengers, then how can "their" shooting be duffed?

Like dswanick said, "That's reading something into the rule which simply is not there."

 

And that 'something' is a conditional. A conditional in logic sounds like an "if, then" statement in English. For example, "if I jumped over the stream, then I didn't get wet." When you fulfill the 'if', the 'then' has to follow. Morticon, you and others are adding a conditional that does not exist to the following statement: "Passengers can only make Snap Shots in their next Shooting Phase," In other words, you're reading the sentence as "if a unit is a passenger, then it can only make snaps shots in their shooting phase." But is that what the sentence says? Do you see an "if"? Do you see a "then"? NO! That means the rule is not a conditional statement and that is why the embarkation status of the 'passenger' unit is irrelevant.

 

And seriously, if somebody makes the same lame comment that Seahawk made (about a biconditional being evidence of reading too much into things) then my response will probably get banned from these forums. Conditional, biconditional... maybe the term isn't common knowledge, but the basic logical concept behind each term should be, especially by people commenting and arguing in an Official Rules forum.... a place where I know 'RAW is king', but where logic keeps you from looking like a dumb :).

[Morticon]

I hear what you're saying and understand what you're arguing. Fluffwise, Im in agreement too. I jsut cant shake the feeling that something's off.

Wasnt it worded the same way in 5th?

 

And is it not entirely relevant as the restriction is dependent on them being "passengers" in order for the damage result to happen. If they had said "the unit that was embarked" etc. I would not argue this.

 

I feel that if you are not a passenger when you are shooting, then this restriction does not apply but, I really do get what you guys are saying. It just seems to open up some oddities like this:

 

A rhino with squad A suffers a shaken result ("Passengers can only make snap shots in their next shooting phase") - then what happens when squad A gets out and B embarks? It's the passenger's (of the damaged vehicle) next shooting phase- now what?

 

Is the key to this maybe in the verbiage "when the transport sustains damage" ?"

thoughts?

[Raeven]

Which is in contradiction to the all-powerful summary in the back. This is the same argument all over again as the "explodes" thread.

 

Either we go by what's written out the long way in the rules (which I advocate) or we follow the chart. They are in conflict in both cases.

 

 

I say we use the book form. The summary was poorly written and not fact checked in some cases.

 

Take Jump Packs vs. Jet Packs charging into difficult terrain. They have the exact same skyborne rules and no differences in their ability to charge into difficult terrain. The chart lists Jet Packs as only rolling 2D6", not 3D6" drop the highest like Jump Packs.

 

So one of them is wrong. Not to mention the misspellings that made it into print.