The Doom of Malantai

[Caldera02]

But where's the fun in that?! I'm leaning more towards it not affecting guys inside vehicles but still as Mkerr said last night, "nuh uhn" is not a valid argument haha.

[Jwolf]

Also, how can a troop inside a rhino capture objectives if indeed they are "off" the board?

By virtue of the specific rule (BRB,P.90, SCORING UNITS): "Units of Troops embarked in a Transport can control objectives (measure the distance to their vehicle's hull).

Again, a case of a specific rule modifying how we deal with the general case.

[Jwolf]

But where's the fun in that?! I'm leaning more towards it not affecting guys inside vehicles but still as Mkerr said last night, "nuh uhn" is not a valid argument haha.

"Nuh Uhn" is the valid counter argument to "Uhn Huh," which was the entire Affirmative case presented.

[Nabterayl]

I'll add on to JWolf's point by observing that nothing in the rulebook actually says that passengers in a transport can't be directly targeted by a shooting attack, yet we all agree that passengers may not be directly targeted. Why would this be, except as a consequence of the fact that for general purposes, passengers are not on the table (and thus no line of sight may be drawn to them)?

[Ferro]

Nab, that doesn't add anything. It's not that you can't draw LOS to passengers because they're off the table; you can't draw LOS to passengers because you can't see them in the transport. This is why you can't shoot them. Soul Sucker doesn't need LOS, it is not shooting, it has no target, it's just an area of effect (like Synapse). (Sounds a bit like the early JotWW arguments, doesn't it? The difference is that JotWW is a psychic shooting attack, and Soul Sucker is not.)

suppliment: Actually, it is in the rulebook that embarked units cannot be shot (it's just hidden in the Buildings section). It's a moot point though Nab, because Soul Sucker isn't a shooting attack anyway.

Mr. Wolf, I've made multiple points which are significantly more substantial than insisting "uh-huh." Quit trying to strawman my argument.

The entire Transport Vehicles section (p66-67) repeatedly and consistently says the embarked unit is in the transport. Passengers can shoot, they get in, they get out, they may not shoot out of the vehicle if it's shaken or stunned, they have to get out if it's destroyed. Your argument invalidates this entire section.

Because I am Relentless and Stubborn:
Embarking: "When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported."
Disembarking: "A unit that begins its Movement phase aboard a vehicle can disembark..."
Q: Where is the unit? A: aboard the vehicle.
Q: What does disembark mean? A: to get out of.
Logical conclusion: the unit was in it.

The models must be set aside because they won't fit in the little toy tank. This does not mean the unit is now out of play. By your own admission (and by consequence of the rules) embarked units can and do interract with the tabletop as if they were in the little toy tank, even though the models don't fit there and you've removed them from the table.

In fact, the only thing that comes even close to supporting your argument, Mr. Wolf, is:
Weapon destroyed & immobilised: These results have no effect on passengers.

If Soul Sucker was destroying vehicle weapons, you would have a strong case.

Uh-huh.

[Nabterayl]

Nab, that doesn't add anything. It's not that you can't draw LOS to passengers because they're off the table; you can't draw LOS to passengers because you can't see them in the transport.

Yes, but why not? If I put an ork physically in the bed of my trukk, you could see him. Would you then be able to target him? Surely not. Surely you can't see them in the transport because there is no model to draw LOS to?

If a vehicle explodes immediately adjacent to a transport with embarked passengers, do those passengers suffer a S3 AP- hit? By your logic, those models are in range, and the rule says "models in range suffer a Strength 3, AP- hit." How is that situation any different? For that matter, why doesn't a blast template that covers a transport vehicle affect the passengers of that vehicle? The unit is "there" under the template, isn't it?

EDIT: Unless your contention is that the unit has a location that bears no relation to the disposition of its models?

[Ferro]

Those are all good points Nab. You're right that the dang book never explicitly says you can't shoot at an embarked unit, but it comes close on p 79 about Buildings. It explains that you treat building like transport vehicles, and that "all the normal rules [for transport vehicles] apply," then that "units inside a building may not be attacked directly, but will be affected in the same manner as units inside a transport vehicle..."

This section explains it for buildings, and says it's the same way for transports. THAT's why you can't shoot an embarked unit, or that an embarked unit can't be hurt by the examples you listed. Yet, the unit counts as being there. I'm not suggesting that we can shoot an embarked unit. I just want to establish where the embarked unit is.

Everything indicates that the unit is in the transport, even if the models don't actually fit.

Also, you're not allowed to put the orks in the back of the truck! Maybe some people do this, but there's nothing in the Open-Topped section which says you actually put your models on the vehicle. You should defer back to the generic transport vehicle rules, which says to remove models from the table but perhaps set one model on top to remind you of what's embarked. That model is not really there and you cannot draw LOS to it, it's only a post-it note.

If Mr. Wolf wishes to maintain that 'removed from the table and placed aside' = out of the game in all respects, I'll allow it. I will also gladly accept killpoints for all the embarked units, which cannot disembark, shoot, give orders, or use psychic powers throughout the game. Hey, they're off the table.

[Nabterayl]

Those are all good points Nab. You're right that the dang book never explicitly says you can't shoot at an embarked unit, but it comes close on p 79 about Buildings. It explains that you treat building like transport vehicles, and that "all the normal rules [for transport vehicles] apply," then that "units inside a building may not be attacked directly, but will be affected in the same manner as units inside a transport vehicle..."

This section explains it for buildings, and says it's the same way for transports. THAT's why you can't shoot an embarked unit, or that an embarked unit can't be hurt by the examples you listed. Yet, the unit counts as being there. I'm not suggesting that we can shoot an embarked unit. I just want to establish where the embarked unit is.

That's a good point about buildings, but I think the actual language cuts both ways. Page 70 says "Units inside a building may not be attacked directly." Obviously that covers the situation of somebody trying to shoot a unit inside a building, and I agree that it implies that you cannot shoot a unit inside a true transport vehicle, either.

But suppose I have a Rhino with passengers that is right next to a Vindicator. The Vindicator is shot, and explodes, causing each model within d6" to take a S3 AP- hit. Obviously the Rhino takes that hit. Why wouldn't its passengers, though? An explosion is certainly not a "direct" attack, so page 79 doesn't apply. I see only two rationales:

1. The passenger unit's location is coextensive with the location of the Rhino, but none of the passenger models have a location at all, and thus no models are within d6" of the exploding Vindicator, even though the unit is present; or
2. The passenger unit has no location at all.

Of the two, I prefer option 2. Option 1 doesn't allow us to analyze any situations that option 2 doesn't already cover in a simpler way. Option 1 also seems to fly in the face of page 3, which says that when measuring distance between two units, we measure between the closest models. The transport rules nowhere actually state that passenger a unit has a location despite the fact that its models do not, and page 3, which is the default rule for determining the location of a unit, requires the presence of a model to work. So option 1 leaves us with a rules quandry that option 2 neatly sidesteps.

[gcsmith]

lol because it says all MODELS!!!! not units. The model is the rhino as its the only model withing 6 inches however the unit is there. just my 2 cents

[crazyredpraetorian]

Ferro, by your logic a heavy flamer shooting at a battlewagon would wound the models inside, the battle wagon being an open topped vehicle. That is not allowed in this ruleset.