I didn't exactly see how Tim's quoting of the Wraithguard rule applied. As you mentioned, they don't get out because they can't move, or do anything else to protect themselves, when they fail a wraithsight roll.

Unless, perchance, being restricted from getting out when they fail the roll means they are always allowed to get out when they don't fail????

---

And I figure crashing your transport is a cheesy way of getting a really LONG move and still shoot this turn, and it DESERVES to be ruled against in a tournament.

But if a rule isn't clear, then I think that damages tournament play, which imo damages the hobby itself. (Fun play is easy, just don't play that person again. Tournament play is all about by gosh Winning and Whining and arguing about the rules is going to happen.)

Ah well, enough whining about GW. I appreciate all the different clearheaded opinions available on this forum (as opposed to that other one where arguments seem to rapidly revolve to name calling.) It is nice to ask a question and get reasonable answers before getting into a competitive situation where there is money on the line. Or maybe more valuable, a friendship. Maybe. (g)

I'm accumulating a list of unclear items that I carry around with me to resolve before beginning play. It only takes about 3 minutes to roll the 15 dice needed to resolve those few items that GW has left indecisive. That's not too long is it? (g)

Gymbol wrote:I didn't exactly see how Tim's quoting of the Wraithguard rule applied. As you mentioned, they don't get out because they can't move, or do anything else to protect themselves, when they fail a wraithsight roll.

the Wraithguard rule shows that even though disembarkation is sometimes compulsory, if another rule stops you from disembarking then that takes precedence and the unit gets destroyed.

if a Wraithguard player cant say "but they *must* disembark because it is compulsory - so i get to ignore Wraithsight" then doesnt it follow that a player also couldnt claim that they *must* disembark so therefore they get to ignore restrictions placed in disembarking due to other rules, like the speed the Vehicle was moving?

thoughts?

~ Tim

Hm.
I didn't see it that way when I originally read the FAQ, and I still can't. I read the FAQ as a clarification to the real Wraithsight rule, "You better buy a psyker."
--------

If another (written) rule stops you from disembarking, then you are dead with your transport. We all agree with that.

But when we have to mix several rules from different places in the book(s) and we have to have an ad hoc interpretation and an ad hoc ranking system to prioritize... and then we have to do that for each new game we play with each new opponent... ouch. (Unless you Both enjoy that kind of thing.)

OK, so assume priority for the following items is thus:
1. Can't get out in the Movement Phase.
2. Otherwise, if the transport wrecks any other time, then emergency disembark.

However, as I mentioned earlier, when I ram and crash the transport, I'm doing it in my SHOOTING phase. So now I can get the troops out? And what is the difference other than I was more an*l than my opponent in finding nits to pick?

Instead of using the words 'movement phase' Should the rule have been:
1. Can't get out on the player's turn?

I think Tim explained his logic clearly, so I won't go into that again. As far as your prioritizing question, Gymbol, the only hole there *might* be in Tim's argument is that wraithsight is a codex rule.

In Tim's discussion with Jervis, and in subsequent FAQ's GW has ruled that codex > BGB. There's no doubt about that with wrathsight. However, in the case of "cannot get out" vs "must get out from a destroyed skimmer going flat out", both rules come from the BGB.

My question for Tim then is why it would be assumed that one would override the other. I'll agree that the wraitsight ruling gives us some RAI evidence, but within the BGB how can we determine which of two contradictory rules to apply?

Finally, yes, Gymbol, if you crash your skimmer in the shooting phase it is NOT the movement phase, so the restriction would not apply. Be forewarned on that topic as well though because there is a broad school of thought that claims that you can't even ram with the star engine movement to begin with. See the rules forum on Warseer for an ongoing discussion on that one where I am trying to convince people that movement really equals movement.

Kyrolon wrote:My question for Tim then is why it would be assumed that one would override the other. I'll agree that the wraitsight ruling gives us some RAI evidence, but within the BGB how can we determine which of two contradictory rules to apply?

just to be clear, im not (quite) arguing that one does override the other, just pointing out that such an argument could be made (ive not really formed a solid opinion on the specifics of this particular case, so im just trying to piece together anything that you all may find useful).

to answer your question though (;)): we already know that despite disembarkation being compulsory in some instances, it can still be impossible to achieve - in fact, the rules even make an allowance for this and tell us what to do when the unit cannot get out (they are destroyed). this sets the precedent that compulsory disembarkation is not the same as it is automatic disembarkation regardless of all other factors.

on the other hand, the rules for disembarking from a Fast moving Transport Vehicle make no such allowances - nothing indicates that they can be overruled.

this could be seen as an indicator of a set priority existing between the two rules (and could be supported by the Wraithsight FAQ).

Kyrolon wrote:Finally, yes, Gymbol, if you crash your skimmer in the shooting phase it is NOT the movement phase, so the restriction would not apply.

regardless of how it would be handled in the Movement Phase, i can most definately agree here.

same goes if your Transport was somehow destroyed in the Assault Phase.

Kyrolon wrote:Be forewarned on that topic as well though because there is a broad school of thought that claims that you can't even ram with the star engine movement to begin with.

heh its too late tonight for me to even think about that one.
(im just glad Kate doesnt have Vehicles in her Eldar collection - we get to avoid these discussions in real life )

anyway, hope that helps

~ Tim

Excellent reasoning as usual, Tim. I'd agree at this point that the RAW answer is that the unit in the transport would die. I don't like it, but it kinda makes sense that a transport flying along at 200mph that becomes a fireball would take its passengers with it, but only in the movement phase weird as that may be.

It's almost a non issue unless you are ramming with a full transport (which you really shouldn't be doing from a fluff perspective) or if you are playing with older scenario (or Apocalypse?) rules for minefields. In that case I can see why a vehicle should need to slow down to a careful speed.

I still don't read the rule the same way you do, but I'll assume for the nonce you are correct Kyrolon.

A skimmer going flat out that fails dangerous terrain is destroyed taking its squad with it. Or when the IG codex is issued with a rule that allows a squad to shoot in the enemy movement phase, this also kills your squad.

A warning about fluff and 'makes sense'... don't even go there. There are massive disappointments in relying upon something that 'makes sense' when dealing with conflicting rules that have to be decided on the fly and everyone in the game has an opinion that is based solidly upon their individual advantage in this game.

Tim, (if I may call you that, being new to the board)
when you talk about being able to disembark vs being prohibited from doing so, has the situation been resolved about when part of the squad, but not all, has room to disembark?

MOD EDIT: definition added above for clarity. ~ Tim

Gymbol wrote:A warning about fluff and 'makes sense'... don't even go there. There are massive disappointments in relying upon something that 'makes sense' when dealing with conflicting rules that have to be decided on the fly and everyone in the game has an opinion that is based solidly upon their individual advantage in this game.

while that is true, sometimes being able to back an answer up with some fluff rationale can make it a little more palatable (it just wont make an answer the right one by itself).

Gymbol wrote:Tim, (if I may call you that, being new to the board)

what?! how did you discover my real name?!

LOL yes of course you can call me that (ive been called worse things... ).

Gymbol wrote:when you talk about being able to disembark vs being prohibited from doing so, has the situation been resolved about when part of the squad, but not all, has room to disembark?

IIRC if part cant disembark normally then they all use Emergency Disembarkation instead. if part still cant disembark, then that part is destroyed. im sure we did a thread on it though...

cheers

~ Tim

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:

Gymbol wrote:when you talk about being able to disembark vs being prohibited from doing so, has the situation been resolved about when part of the squad, but not all, has room to disembark?

IIRC if part cant disembark normally then they all use Emergency Disembarkation instead. if part still cant disembark, then that part is destroyed. im sure we did a thread on it though...

cheers

~ Tim

Yes, it was left with:
1. We need a FAQ.
2. In the mean while, since the rules seem to conflict, we are going to use common sense and say part of the squad can get out while the rest die.
(If I was smart enough I'd throw a link to your post in here.)