Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Reply: Fast Transport Vehicles



GDMNV has discussed the ruling relating to fast vehicles and passengers. In the most recent FAQ it was clarified passengers in a transport which moves flat out and in the same player’s turn (pg 9 BRB) is destroyed, then the passengers are killed. We both agree on this as it’s quite clear based on this ruling:

“Passengers may not embark or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase.”

However, there is an important word GDMNV has missed in his interpretation of opponent’s shooting at transports having gone fast. Because of pg9, the FAQ clarification is only indicating passengers are removed as casualties if the transport is destroyed in that particular player turn. As Laeroth points out here, this would obviously be grossly imbalanced if it related to game turn as players going 1st would have a significant disadvantage with fast transports compared to individuals going 2nd. GW isn’t that dumb. However, they have been dumb in the past so let’s take further information from the rulebook and refer back to the pg70 ruling quoted above and focus on a key word: ‘that.’

What this quote from the BRB on pg 70 is saying due to the word that and what the FAQ clarifies is this - at any time during the specific movement phase of a player, passengers are disallowed from embarking or disembarking from a flat out transport whether it has gone flat out or is intending do. What this means is any transport which is wrecked for any reason when going flat out in that movement phase takes all passengers with it in an anti-climatic crash (we agree on this). This does not extend to the shooting phase of the opponent because of the combination of the ruling on pg9 helping clarify the FAQ and the word ‘that’ relating the rule to the specific movement phase on pg70. If the wording was “…moved flat out in the movement phase” it would indicate this would extend to the opponent’s next shooting phase as there was no restrictive clause (the word that) limiting the ruling to the movement phase. Explained further... because the word that is used, the specific movement phase has been identified to when this rule takes place which is supported by the FAQ and ruling on pg 9 indicating turn is quantified as player turn unless otherwise specified.

Again, this means the passengers of flat out transports suffer the results of wrecked and explodes results as normal when shot down during the opponent's shooting phase (i.e. pinning test, placed within 2" of exits/in crater, etc.) but are removed from play if wrecked or exploded (exploded was clarified by the FAQ) during the same player turn they moved flat out.

GDMNV however makes another point which I need to go look up though (I was using all of his references for this as my BRB is at home :P) in regards with flat out Skimmers and dangerous terrain. Without looking through the rulebook his points do make sense as the rule reference on pg 71 indicates immoblisation resulting in wrecks relates to a previous movement phase. From his logic I can see where he’s coming from but my brain is telling me I’m missing something (though we need to add a note that the Skimmer isn’t immoblised at the edge of terrain but inside the terrain as it is a skimmer ‘landing’ in terrain; this is where I think I might find my brain is kicking me and indicating there might be a rule to support this).

Anyway, as it stands we need to look at fast skimmers and dangerous terrain but Laeroth’s reiteration of what the FAQ ruling relating passengers and flat-out transports was correct. They are fine if destroyed during your opponent’s shooting phase but are dead if your transport dies during the actual player turn they moved flat out. Discuss the dangerous terrain please (and the other one if you’re still confused) until I can get my rulebook!

Comments (35)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I can't believe people are still arguing this.
4 replies · active less than 1 minute ago
Its the whole reason I made that original comment in the first place. Apparently I wasn't clear enough. lol
Your point was clear. It's the reasoning that's off. p9 doesn't work as an argument. B doesn't follow A. As it were.

Of course, it now appears that you were correct. Following the ruling at a GW GT at Warhammer World, but that's not page nine magic. That's simply what the author meant. Different things.
I gave numerous reasons beyond simply the pg 9 rule. I wanted to make sure that there was no question what the FAQ intended. It seems that I was not as thorough as I thought I was and that was what I was commenting on. :)
I saw three reasons. I don't think the terrain argument and page nine hold water. I've said as much.

As for the p70 movement phase thing. That's what I thought was being expanded and clarified by the FAQ. On consideration I think that you are correct in giving this reason.

In short then. Your conclusion is correct and your third argument is correct. However the first two arguments presented are illogical (p9, doesn't apply) and incorrect (p71, terrain can't destroy skimmers - only shooting can), in that order.

So you are right sir, and I admit my error, but two of your three reasons are not.
Killswitch's avatar

Killswitch · 748 weeks ago

Yeh, it was even ruled at warhammer world that the squads die in their turn, not in your opponents shooting phase, end of.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Thanks for sharing this earlier... (did you? :D )
GW has only themselves to blame for this confusion; they either need to rename "player turns" to "turn halves" or be much more certain that they're specifying which kind of turn they mean.
11 replies · active 748 weeks ago
Yes and no. I always thought it was pretty clear though I only recall one game where we had an issue as the guy didn't think his Banshees should die since his Wave Serpent rammed and wrecked so we just auto-pinned them. The FAQ basically just said this now happens with an explodes result as well as people were getting around it since Explodes didn't result in passengers 'disembarking;' rather they were placed. Everyone got confused because so many people had always assumed the refernce on pg70 meant you can't hop in or out of your transport when moving or going to move flat out.

Does GW need to improve their writing? Absolutely =D! lol
And yet they don't say half turn, Kirby. They don't use clear, exactly language. The very reason that this article exists supports that. It is THAT SIMPLE to killing the issue, but no.

Another fascinating thing: Everyone was surprised that they did another FAQ on the BRB. Are things really that bad with GW that they can't even update their game (although they are making a spirited attempt with 5e, although it's SLOOOOOOOOOOW)
What? The only confusion comes from people not knowing the rules. Go reread page nine. You'll notice that they spell it out there that any time they use the word "turn" they mean "player turn". A game turn will always be explicitly called that.
Double agree <3 .
Nah. P9 is really well written. It says In this book (ie BR B) or the codexes. Nothing about FAQ's. It's simply not there. You have to invent some words to say that it is...
I triple agree...and said so in my original comment Kirby referenced well over a month ago. Go go reading comprehension. :)
You don't think it's a stretch?

The FAQ is definitely not a codex. So that's out.

BRB - Well the actual words are 'this book'.

It's not physically in there. So it can't be that.

It's not errata either, so it's not been inserted by the FAQ in to the BRB. So it's not that.

It's not in an FAQ answer either, which might be construed as part of the rules and therefore inducted or adopted in to the text of the BRB.

The word 'turn' appears in the text of a submitted question. So now you think that published questions about the rules are part of the rules? That they may be considered part of 'this book'?

Did I miss something here? How are you doing this? What am I not comprehending?
A FAQ is a document that answers "Frequently Asked Questions" from its parent material, in this case, the rulebook. As such, the FAQs are simply reference material for both the codices and the rulebook. They are not "separate", but rather extensions of those publications.

With that being said, when an established clarification (i.e. the turn explanation on pg 9) in the rulebook comes forth in the BRB FAQ, it is logical to surmise that all of the core rules of the BRB are in place for the FAQ. The FAQ document is simply a clarification piece, nothing more.

More times than not, rules are inter-weaved with each other in such a way that one paragraph cannot give you the full rule for a situation. This is such a time. The clarification in the FAQ referenced a rule that, to me, was already clear. As players, we need to see how to take these little pieces of the puzzle to put together the whole picture. It isn't always clear cut, but if you take a look at things logically, it'll all work out. :)
While I cede that you appear to be correct in your conclusion, as I admit above, two of your three arguments don't work.

An FAQ (thanks for explaining what they are, I really had no idea before) is not part of the original document. If they were there would be no need to explicitly insert elements of an FAQ into the original document would there? It would be, er, illogical.

Also, Flyers cannot be destroyed by difficult terrain. There's no such rule or inter-weaving of rules in the BRB, unless you'd like to point one out?

You were right. But the way you explained your being correct was 2/3 wrong. You're still right in the end but there's now a huge crowd of people talking about p9 and terrain wrecking skimmers. That's two wrongs for one right. I'm not sure that's a good thing...
I had to Google this.

And you're right. Some folks said that explodes result didn't lead to disembarking. Hilarious.

This makes sense. If the FAQ was intended to tidy that matter up then it has a purpose and the turn reference is a lot more sensible that I had first supposed.

Ok. I was wrong then. You only lose your embarked troops if you are Death or Gloried or fail a Ram rather badly during your movement phase.

It's just the stuff about page nine and terrain immobilisation turning into wrecked results that's wrong.

I'll have to do more research in future eh?
If people can't abstract things very well, put flesh on it and see if it holds true

*If* it is game turns [which it is not] this will happen:

Scenario A.
T1
Deldar turn1: Deldar Raider flat-outs.
Space Wolves turn1: Long Fangs shoot down Raider - Raider and passengers die due to new FAQ ruling.

Okay, cool.

Now try this out.

Scenario B.
T1
Space Wolves turn1: Long Fangs shoot stuff [the Raiders are out of TLoS or off the table]
Deldar turn1: Deldar Raider flat-outs.

T2
Space Wolves turn2: Long Fangs shoot down Raider - Raider and passengers DO NOT die due to new FAQ ruling, because it didn't happen in the same Game turn.

So you can see, both times a Wolf turn followed a Deldar turn, yet the result of what happened [the passengers getting blown up] change.

This shows that it is not game turn, otherwise the Deldar gets a different result if he goes secong rather than going first. No way.

The did not mean game turn. No way you can RAI that. It does not work by the rules so how can it be intended?
1 reply · active 748 weeks ago
I'm not arguing for game turns. Maybe I should make that clearer. I think the whole turns thing is a red herring. I think the flat out pros and cons apply in the next player turn regardless of game turns etc.

So in the same way that the DE player gets a cover save for moving flat out he (or she I suppose) also risks losing the contents of his raiders if they are shot down. Pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages to moving 12 or faster.

You see where I'm coming from?
For your first point about game turn VS player turn the rule book clearly states "whenever a rule uses the word "turn", both in this book and codexes it means "player turn", otherwise it will clearly state "game turn"" pg9, thats clearly covered unless your an idiot.

@ Marshal_Wilhelm - that is exactly how nijels special rule thing works :(
4 replies · active less than 1 minute ago
Which is what every post on this has stated...
I know. LOL

But actually Njal's power doesn't work well due to 'game turn' being chosen by the FAQites.
More credence that it must be player turn :P
I think that was a victory of RAW written over common sense. However it has been clearly explained. For Njal to work properly the wolves must go first. What a shame eh?
Bang on. So why would you apply something which says it is for the text of the BRB and the codexes to an FAQ question? How does that work?

Is it in a codex? No. Is it in the BigRedBook? No.

Doesn't apply then does it?
Hey Kirby,

Thanks for posting a response so promptly.

It appears that I may be wrong about this after all. Especially if it's been clarified at the Games Workshop GT held at Warhammer World. I genuinely didn't know about that.

However. I maintain that p9 does not apply. Also that the rules regarding shooting down fast skimmers on p71, cleverly labelled "Shooting at Skimmers" are being misapplied to terrain effects.

If I have got this wrong it is an error of interpretation on my part. But this whole p9 thing is nonsense. Any alignment in interpretation is coincidental rather than logical.

By which I mean that if the correct interpretation is that it applies only in that player turn then this is because that's what the FAQ author meant. Not because they intended the p9 clarification to apply. An important distinction.
8 replies · active 748 weeks ago
I agree with you on the terrain/immob thing but again need to go over the rulebook to be 100% sure. Oversight in terms of RAW if there isn't anything in regards to that as I think RAI would be as has been played... anyway will see regards to that.

Glad you agree in relation to flat out skimmers though! However, with pg 9 as laeroth says above, how does a rule in the BRB not pertain to an FAQ document relating to it? It's like the BRB 1.1 and saying that something specifically stating the BRB and books doesn't apply to the FAQ leads to a whole bunch of issues.
I've edited the post over at GDMNW to reflect my new, revised, opinion. Enough said.

Thanks for agreeing with me when it comes to DTT's. Takes a man to admit his mistakes. I note a great deal of silence from others on that point though. Is it an uncomfortable silence?

As for p9. I see how you can see it that way. I figure you don't need the clarification so why worry about it? The FAQ is meant to refer to the rules, not the rules refer to the FAQ. I think that's a little bit backwards and have said as much.

Phew. It's tough talking something out. People take sides very easily and avoid the bits their uncomfortable about. I see that all you have to do is disagree with me in the comments on this post and people like your comment!

Much learned about blog debates. Much learned indeed.
It wasn't avoiding reply on my part. I simply have been working all day/night, so hadn't had a chance to comment. And at this point, it doesn't really matter. I don't have the energy to go back and re-reference and cross-reference everything in the rulebook to put forth such an airtight point, as to help you understand where I'm coming from.

But, as I said, I don't particularly have the motivation or the energy to do so right now. You said you understand your mistake and that is all that really matters to me. It wasn't that it was YOU. Hell, I'd argue with Kirby if he was saying the same thing. It was that I didn't want false information being passed around, because in this small world...I'd get the guy that reads your blog, has the situation come up, and argues your previous point during a tournament. Which is a bad, bad thing. :(

Now could I possibly be wrong about the other parts? Perhaps, I'll have to go back and back-reference. But what I remember of doing it before, the argument was still sound. So I can agree on a tenuous agree to disagree here. As long as you're not killing fast vehicles and the guys inside on your turn. ;)
...you'd argue with me :( ? lol
Wouldn't you want him to? :D
Nope. I've learn't my lesson.

There's no way I meant you either. You've been happy to discuss all of this all along. I guess I'm referring to the fact that where I am clearly wrong several people have commented. Not because it was me per se, but because it's easy to agree and point out that the guy who is wrong, is, er, wrong.

I was simply noting that areas of actual controversy attract less conversation. This is a shame.

On re-reading my comment it comes over as rude. Not my intent. I appreciate people responding to what I thought was a misinterpretation.

I'll settle for 1/3. Next time I'll think about it more and aim to be 100% on the button.
I think nearly all of us would say pg9 is where our 'authority' is coming from. You don't but that is cool.
Even if a GW author writes that that he likes apples on Monday, we don't entirely know what he meant and have to rely on the gist of other rules to form a picture. But just from one written rule, things are not always clear, even if we guess correctly or we are 'feeling' the author correctly.
Maybe the author only likes apples on Monday, maybe he likes them everyday, maybe maybe maybe.

So what mini has Kirby chosen? :P
If only what you were saying wasn't true...

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...