Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My group has been kicking these three questions around the last two days, and I wanted to get some more input.

1. Can a unit in a transport vehicle assault the turn after their vehicle is wrecked?
- I would argue no, they cannot. A unit in a vehicle that is wrecked "must immediately disembark in the usual manner, save that they must end their move wholly within 3" rather than 6"." - BRB pg.80. Then, Disembarkation restrictions state that "models can shoot, counting as having moved, or choose to Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.' - BRB pg. 79. If a vehicle is wrecked during your opponent's turn, you would be unable to charge during your subsequent Assault phase.

2. Can a unit in an assault transport vehicle assault the turn after their vehicle is wrecked?
- I would argue that as above, the unit would be unable to charge. Assault vehicle states that "Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so, even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed." - BRB pg. 33. Since the phrase "turn" refers to a player turn (per BRB pg. 9), the unit would only be able to assault on the specific player turn in which the vehicle was destroyed. In the next player turn, they would still be restricted as above.

3. Can a unit in a transport vehicle assault the turn after it is destroyed?
- A unit that is in a destroyed vehicle does not disembark, and so would be unrestricted in their subsequent assault phase.

Who say you, proud warriors?

I think this is a good summary of RAW.

I'm not a fan of any of the 3 rules, but I think that's the way it is. I'd love for someone to argue convincingly the other way.

Raw is clear. Discuss with your opponent and see what they say if you disagree.

I think you are adding a sense of "ownership" to the term subsequent that does not apply.
subsequent just means "coming after something else or following something else" so after your opponent wrecks or destroys your vehicle and your unit disembarks or survives the explosion, for that unit and the whole board the subsequent assault phase is still in that player turn.
You do not play each player turn in a vacuum, each game turn has two player turns in which each player controls the action but for the armies on the board it is just move, shoot then assault. move, shoot then assault. move, shoot then assault.

40k-noob wrote:I think you are adding a sense of "ownership" to the term subsequent that does not apply.
subsequent just means "coming after something else or following something else" so after your opponent wrecks or destroys your vehicle and your unit disembarks or survives the explosion, for that unit and the whole board the subsequent assault phase is still in that player turn.

the rule says 'their'

jcress410 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:I think you are adding a sense of "ownership" to the term subsequent that does not apply.
subsequent just means "coming after something else or following something else" so after your opponent wrecks or destroys your vehicle and your unit disembarks or survives the explosion, for that unit and the whole board the subsequent assault phase is still in that player turn.

the rule says 'their'

as in the models not the player's.

the model's subsequent assault phase is still under the control of the "shooting"player.

Also clearly if you read the whole page it is referring to actions conducted in the Movement phase.

First two questions I agree. Last one is a no.

If their transport vehicle is wrecked or exploded, the passengers cannot assault on their next assault phase.

imweasel wrote:First two questions I agree. Last one is a no.

If their transport vehicle is wrecked or exploded, the passengers cannot assault on their next assault phase.

Actually, by strict RAW if the vehicle is exloded, passengers can assault. Because the models are placed, not disembarked in that case.

imweasel wrote:First two questions I agree. Last one is a no.

If their transport vehicle is wrecked or exploded, the passengers cannot assault on their next assault phase.

Incorrect, by strict raw. WHen a vehicle explodes, the models are placed - they are never considered to have disembarked.

I saw nothing in the first two questions about exploding, only wtecked, which is going to happen to transport vehicles more often than exploding, imo.

I guess if by destroyed you mean exploded, then yes.

They said "Destroyed", which given the context meant Explodes. Could see how it could be missed though!

40k-noob wrote:

jcress410 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:I think you are adding a sense of "ownership" to the term subsequent that does not apply.
subsequent just means "coming after something else or following something else" so after your opponent wrecks or destroys your vehicle and your unit disembarks or survives the explosion, for that unit and the whole board the subsequent assault phase is still in that player turn.

the rule says 'their'

as in the models not the player's.

the model's subsequent assault phase is still under the control of the "shooting"player.

Also clearly if you read the whole page it is referring to actions conducted in the Movement phase.

So you think "their subsequent assault phase", the model's subsequent assault phase, means your opponent's assault phase?
Wouldn't the rule just say "the subsequent assault phase"?

Interested in the outcome of this one; I had it come up last game - we ruled it as no assaulting for the disembarked unit's next assault phase.

Reasoning was that a) it would be an advantage to get your transport exploded/wrecked from under you as you wouldn't have been able to assault in your next go anyway (unless Assault Vehicle) and b) the wording 'their subsequent assault phase'.

Thanks for all the replies and the good discussion so far, everyone.

As I have not seen any persuasive arguments to the contrary, I am sticking with my original answers to the question.

Regarding the wording of the topic heading and the specific questions, I used the words destroyed, wrecked, and exploded all very carefully. Destroyed in the topic heading indicates that I would be discussing both wrecked and exploded results. In the questions, the word wrecked is used for questions one and two and is very specific in its meaning. The word exploded is used in questions three, and is also very specific in its meaning.

With regards to 40k-noobs argument, I do not see any language which indicates that the words "their subsequent assault phase" refers to the next assault phase of any player. I am imparting ownership to the rules - the word "their" shows that we should do so. Otherwise, the word "their" is unnecessary and has no function at all.

I agree with the OP's 3 statements. Statement 2 puzzled me for a moment, but strict RAW even an assault vehicle's unit cannot assault in their turn if the enemy wrecks them the turn before. I wouldn't play it this way, though, it seems only right that should the ork trukk or DE raider get wrecked, the assault vehicle status should allow the occupants to launch an assault in their assault phase. Again, RAW works as above but i won't be a stickler on that ruling until an official FAQ addresses it.

Interesting catch on the exploded tank units not disembarking, but rather being placed.

I agree with 40k-noob. The subject of the disembarkation rule is the 'model'.
'models can ....in their ....'

The player turn is controlled by the 'shooting' player.

Even if it is argued that the op is correct, for simplicity's sake, our group would probably continue to play that the models may assault in their following player turn.

But the models in question are not controlled by the shooting player. It is not "their" assault phase - it is the opponents.

ThePhish wrote:I agree with 40k-noob. The subject of the disembarkation rule is the 'model'.
'models can ....in their ....'

The player turn is controlled by the 'shooting' player.

Even if it is argued that the op is correct, for simplicity's sake, our group would probably continue to play that the models may assault in their following player turn.

Should you and your group play in this manner, it would encourage rhinos and chimeras and other transports to actually !hope! to get destroyed in some manner by the opponent after rushing in. If the rhino is unhurt, the models inside can only get out and fire. Had I spent the time to wreck it on my turn, now i've basically given you an advantage of being able to assault as well when your turn comes around? Plus if i ignore the rhino, it'll just keep tank shocking around my deployment zone until it's dealt with. It's a no-lose scenario for any transport heavy army if you play it your way. By disallowing assaults the following turn after a destroyed result, the balance put forth in the rules is maintained.

6th edition is not, will not be, a parking lot edition. At least i pray it isn't, that was probably one of the 2 worst features of 5th (the other being wound allocation wargear shenanigans).

I understand how the OP can come to his conclusions. The RAW can give that impression.

However consider this then. Page 80 states: "must immediately disembark in the usual manner(see page 79), save that they must end their move wholly within 3" rather than 6"."
Page 79 states under "Disembarking"
"A unit that starts its movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved....."

So if a vehicle is destroyed/wrecked in your opponents shooting/assault phase does that embarked unit have to wait until the its movement phase to forced to disembark?
After all that is the "usual manner" for disembarking.

40k-noob wrote:I understand how the OP can come to his conclusions. The RAW can give that impression.

However consider this then. Page 80 states: "must immediately disembark in the usual manner(see page 79), save that they must end their move wholly within 3" rather than 6"."
Page 79 states under "Disembarking"
"A unit that starts its movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved....."

So if a vehicle is destroyed/wrecked in your opponents shooting/assault phase does that embarked unit have to wait until the its movement phase to forced to disembark?
After all that is the "usual manner" for disembarking.

While your quote accurately depicts the rule as written for disembarking, that is a voluntary action taken by a unit during it's movement phase. The disembarkation that occurs after a vehicle wrecks is a mandatory action, listed as an effect of said wreck onto the unit. Your argument here is a straw man, the above OP's statements still stand.

40k-noob wrote:I understand how the OP can come to his conclusions. The RAW can give that impression.

However consider this then. Page 80 states: "must immediately disembark in the usual manner(see page 79), save that they must end their move wholly within 3" rather than 6"."
Page 79 states under "Disembarking"
"A unit that starts its movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved....."

So if a vehicle is destroyed/wrecked in your opponents shooting/assault phase does that embarked unit have to wait until the its movement phase to forced to disembark?
After all that is the "usual manner" for disembarking.

"must immediately disembark"

The word "immediately" on pg. 80 shows that you perform a disembark immediately upon the vehicle become a wreck. This overcomes the normal time restrictions on when a disembark can happen, and in fact forces it to happen immediately. The specific rule regarding disembarking from a wreck vehicle overcomes the more general disembarkation restrictions in this case, as we have very specific wording. The word "immediately" is in no way ambiguous. If you did not disembark immediately after the vehicle is wrecked, then why would they use the word "immediately"?

tetrisphreak wrote:

40k-noob wrote:I understand how the OP can come to his conclusions. The RAW can give that impression.

However consider this then. Page 80 states: "must immediately disembark in the usual manner(see page 79), save that they must end their move wholly within 3" rather than 6"."
Page 79 states under "Disembarking"
"A unit that starts its movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved....."

So if a vehicle is destroyed/wrecked in your opponents shooting/assault phase does that embarked unit have to wait until the its movement phase to forced to disembark?
After all that is the "usual manner" for disembarking.

While your quote accurately depicts the rule as written for disembarking, that is a voluntary action taken by a unit during it's movement phase. The disembarkation that occurs after a vehicle wrecks is a mandatory action, listed as an effect of said wreck onto the unit. Your argument here is a straw man, the above OP's statements still stand.

You also cant have it both ways. In this situation either you adhere strictly to RAW or you do not. If pg80 states that you must disembark as per page 79 then you disembark when page 79 says you can disembark, albeit involuntarily, in that units movement phase. Otherwise the unit cannot disembark because it is not its movement phase and is therefor destroyed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dukal wrote:The word "immediately" on pg. 80 shows that you perform a disembark immediately upon the vehicle become a wreck. This overcomes the normal time restrictions on when a disembark can happen, and in fact forces it to happen immediately. The specific rule regarding disembarking from a wreck vehicle overcomes the more general disembarkation restrictions in this case, as we have very specific wording. The word "immediately" is in no way ambiguous. If you did not disembark immediately after the vehicle is wrecked, then why would they use the word "immediately"?

The vehicle becomes a wreck AFTER the unit disembarks. Read the last sentence in the paragraph

You are grossly misinterpreting RAW. While the disembarking is normally restricted to the movement phase, we have a specific ruling directing you to perform it after a vehicle is wrecked. This specific rule allows for the disembark move immediately upon the vehicle become wrecked, regardless of phase. Yes, this overrides the normal restrictions for when you may disembark - which is very clearly exactly what the BRB intends, and does not contradict itself.

Dukal wrote:You are grossly misinterpreting RAW. While the disembarking is normally restricted to the movement phase, we have a specific ruling directing you to perform it after a vehicle is wrecked. This specific rule allows for the disembark move immediately upon the vehicle become wrecked, regardless of phase. Yes, this overrides the normal restrictions for when you may disembark - which is very clearly exactly what the BRB intends, and does not contradict itself.

RAW are not interpretations, they are what they are.

RAI are interpretations and well everyone has those.

I could be wrong or you could be. Guess it will take an FAQ to sort it out.

1. Can a unit in a transport vehicle assault the turn after their vehicle is wrecked?
I would argue yes unless they were pinned in the turn their vehicle was wrecked. I say that because the unit is allowed to move/shoot normally the (player)turn AFTER their transport was wrecked. The rules talking about this are for vehicles where the units disembark and assault in the same (player) turn.
Edit: Actually I changed my mind on this one. Although I think the RAW is just poorly written in this case.

2. Can a unit in an assault transport vehicle assault the turn after their vehicle is wrecked?
Again yes because the unit is able to act normally in its turn. this is because the assault vehicle rules specify that an assault can occur even if the vehicle was destroyed.

3. Can a unit in a transport vehicle assault the turn after it is destroyed?
Due to the fact that the unit was forced to disembark when the vehicle was destroyed then in a new turn that unit would be allowed to assault because the unit is free to move (again only if it was not pinned by the destruction of the vehicle).
Edit: Same as #1 I changed my mind because of what I feel is poorly written RAW.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the biggest issue here is that the rules are always talking about the active turn when it talks about assaulting.

40k-noob wrote:

Dukal wrote:You are grossly misinterpreting RAW. While the disembarking is normally restricted to the movement phase, we have a specific ruling directing you to perform it after a vehicle is wrecked. This specific rule allows for the disembark move immediately upon the vehicle become wrecked, regardless of phase. Yes, this overrides the normal restrictions for when you may disembark - which is very clearly exactly what the BRB intends, and does not contradict itself.

RAW are not interpretations, they are what they are.

RAI are interpretations and well everyone has those.

the rule says immediately. the reference to the disembark rules is for the 'how' not the 'when'.

I could be wrong or you could be. Guess it will take an FAQ to sort it out.

maybe

jcress410 wrote:
So you think "their subsequent assault phase", the model's subsequent assault phase, means your opponent's assault phase?
Wouldn't the rule just say "the subsequent assault phase"?

I feel like GW added "thier" into the sentence to make it a more complete sounding sentence trying to make the wording sound good. This is probably the editors fault for editing the orginal sentence into the sentence in the book...we will never know if that is the case, but I really do feel like this is a just gw trying to make their sentences sound good.

I am not for nor against in the argument because I really do not know...I just think GW tried to make a pretty sentence and in turn added conflict to the rule in some peoples perspective.

jcress410 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Dukal wrote:You are grossly misinterpreting RAW. While the disembarking is normally restricted to the movement phase, we have a specific ruling directing you to perform it after a vehicle is wrecked. This specific rule allows for the disembark move immediately upon the vehicle become wrecked, regardless of phase. Yes, this overrides the normal restrictions for when you may disembark - which is very clearly exactly what the BRB intends, and does not contradict itself.

RAW are not interpretations, they are what they are.

RAI are interpretations and well everyone has those.

the rule says immediately. the reference to the disembark rules is for the 'how' not the 'when'.

I could be wrong or you could be. Guess it will take an FAQ to sort it out.

This will not show up in a faq. faqs generally tackle questions people disagree on frequently.

You seem to think that on pg80 when it says to disembark in the usual manner(see page 79) to only use the rules on that page that are beneficial to your position.

Except that the word "immediately" overrides the normal restrictions on when to disembark, just like the directive to move 3" instead of 6" overrides that normal rule. What does the word "immediately" mean if not at that exact moment? There is no support, at all, for "immediately" meaning to wait several game phases, and then do it. None.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kal-el, I understand your point regarding the chosen wording, but unless there is some proof that the words chosen were not the words they really intended, we can only argue the words they actually chose. The difference between "their" and "the" in this instance can have a huge impact on the game. I believe the word chosen has a meaning, and therefore impacts the rules in a particular way. In this case, that way is to make transports pretty bad, but that is the way this edition plays I suppose.