Okay, here's the question, which came up in a different thread. A unit of my Terminators hops out of a Land Raider in the movement phase. During the shooting phase, I scatter an Orbital Bombardment onto the Land Raider, and get an Explodes result. (Don't worry, all the Terminators survived.) Can the Termies launch an assault in their Assault phase?

One school of thought says yes, since they disembarked from a vehicle with the Assault Vehicle rule.

The other says they cannot, since the tank is no longer on the table, and thus the Assault Vehicle rule no longer applies.

What say you?

no.

BRB FAQ explicitly covers this, by saying that any vehicles special rules cease to apply when it is destroyed

BRB FAQ page 5 wrote:Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule.

edit: ninjaed by 8 seconds...

Nah, you put the quote in - much better!

Hm, that seems pretty crappy considering his example states that the unit already disembarked and the FAQ has them still in the vehicle. I get it, but man that's really illogical even for this game.

This might be splitting the hair mighty thin, but the FAQ example specifically has the models still inside the vehicle, ergo the destruction of the vehicle happens before they disembark. If they have already disembarked before the destruction, haven't they already gained the benefit of the special rule, even though they have yet to apply it? I realize that the number of times this would ever come up would be nil, nonetheless, I find the issue interesting from an academic standpoint.

I'd say no - you check when you need to apply the rule, not when you disembark.

they disembarked ALREADY from the vehicle which has a rule allowing them to assault in the same turn they have disembarked form it.

I see no logic in arguing otherwise other then a desire to be a TFG/rules lawyer.

I would thank any opponent who argued otherwise as he has saved me the time of ever considering playing him again...

CT GAMER wrote:they disembarked ALREADY from the vehicle which has a rule allowing them to assault in the same turn they have disembarked form it.

I see no logic in arguing otherwise other then a desire to be a TFG/rules lawyer.

I would thank any opponent who argued otherwise as he has saved me the time of ever considering playing him again...

Thanks, I love you too.

Please stop being so subjective when analyzing rules, especially in YMDC.
And yes, I would argue this in a tournament. In a friendly game I don't care enough.

rigeld2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:they disembarked ALREADY from the vehicle which has a rule allowing them to assault in the same turn they have disembarked form it.

I see no logic in arguing otherwise other then a desire to be a TFG/rules lawyer.

I would thank any opponent who argued otherwise as he has saved me the time of ever considering playing him again...

Thanks, I love you too.

Please stop being so subjective when analyzing rules, especially in YMDC.
And yes, I would argue this in a tournament. In a friendly game I don't care enough.

I stand behind my original statement regardless of how you (in the general sense) rationalize your behavior.

And I see no reason to play a tournament game with any less sportsmnship and common sense then a casual one, and being TFG is just as repugnant in either case.

The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

CT GAMER wrote:I stand behind my original statement regardless of how you (in the general sense) rationalize your behavior.

And I see no reason to play a tournament game with any less sportsmnship and common sense then a casual one, and being TFG is just as repugnant in either case.

You're seriously going to call me TFG for trying to enforce a rule? It's not about being sportsmanlike - I can do that just fine thanks.
It's about fun in casual games. My friends don't have as much fun discussing rules, so I rarely object anymore (unless its really egregious).
In a tournament one of the TOs jobs is to settle rules disputes.

Keep insinuating that I'm a jerk, TFG, or some other term though. It's amusing.

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

CT GAMER wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

This argument would work for apothecaries and sanguine priests as well - they've joined the unit so the unit gets FNP, even after the apothecary is dead amirite?

rigeld2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

This argument would work for apothecaries and sanguine priests as well - they've joined the unit so the unit gets FNP, even after the apothecary is dead amirite?

No, that's a totally different scenario entirely and doesn't apply here in the slightest.

Mainly because, the factor to get FNP is for the apothecary to be IN the unit. If he's dead, he's not in the unit and FNP ceases to apply immediately. Assault ramps, however, only need to meet the criteria of the unit disembarking from the vehicle in the movement phase (movement speed allowance restrictions applying, of course).

rigeld2 wrote:

BRB FAQ page 5 wrote:Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule.

I can see why people really want this to not mean what it says it means, but the answer looks pretty clear to me. This ruling would also stop Frag Assault Launchers from applying if the vehicle is destroyed.

The FAQ Applies, you can't assault. I use Land Raiders too, it sucks for me too, but, next time, Don't drop a Orbital Strike near your Land Raider.

Would this apply to open topped vehicles too as the vehicle is no longer open topped?

Crazyterran wrote:The FAQ Applies, you can't assault. I use Land Raiders too, it sucks for me too, but, next time, Don't drop a Orbital Strike near your Land Raider.

This right here. An example is just that...an example. It doesn't cover ALL cases. The FAQ is very clear, if the Landraider is destroyed then then Assault Vehicle rule no longer applies. Doesn't matter if they disemarked or got shot out.....the vehicle (and the rule) is now non-existent so you have no option to charge.

Enforcing the rules is not unsportsmanlike or being TFG. If I go to a tournament and completely crush an opponent while forcing him to play be the rules while they threw a tantrum about it (not saying that you are), what have I done to be a bad sport? The person that lost the match would be the one being a poor sport and if I were a TO I'd dock him, not the guy who enforced the rules/FAQ.

Hell the exact same applies to "friendly games". I make no distinction between "friendly" and "competitive" games. The whole concept of differences between the two is just dumb to me.

Logically, yes Vorpalhit. I suppose it would. And just for the record, this has never actually happened to me. It's a purely academic question.

rigeld2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

This argument would work for apothecaries and sanguine priests as well - they've joined the unit so the unit gets FNP, even after the apothecary is dead amirite?

A dead apothecary can't perform first aid, nor dispense pain meds, nor tend wounds which occur after he is dead.

I rarely understand the break in logic people try to force into these sorts of lawyering debates. If one applies a little common sense many of these things clear themselves up nicely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:I stand behind my original statement regardless of how you (in the general sense) rationalize your behavior.

And I see no reason to play a tournament game with any less sportsmnship and common sense then a casual one, and being TFG is just as repugnant in either case.

You're seriously going to call me TFG for trying to enforce a rule? It's not about being sportsmanlike - I can do that just fine thanks.
It's about fun in casual games. My friends don't have as much fun discussing rules, so I rarely object anymore (unless its really egregious).
In a tournament one of the TOs jobs is to settle rules disputes.

Keep insinuating that I'm a jerk, TFG, or some other term though. It's amusing.

You can rationalize your stance on this issue any way that makes you feel better, but I stand beside my statement on this specific issue.

The beauty is we never have to play each other.

Have a nice day.

While it does seem a little counter-intuitive, I see no reason the FAQ answer wouldn't apply to this situation as well. The timing of the disembark is more or less irrelevant... in both cases, the unit disembarks on the same turn, but is unable to assault as the vehicle's special rule no longer applies once it is destroyed.

It's a quirk... but ultimately not one that's actually going to come up very often on the table. The number of events that could cause your vehicle to be destroyed in between your models disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is fairly small.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:... If one applies a little common sense many of these things clear themselves up nicely.

And just as many don't, because people have completely different opinions as to just what the 'common sense' approach actually is.

If 40K was more of a real-world simulation, that might make a difference. But the abstraction required by the rules means that there are a lot of things that don't make sense form a real-world perspective at a quick glance. For a lot of players, just taking the rules as written and not trying to interject 'common sense' logic into interpreting them keeps things running more smoothly.

You're free to interpret the rules as you choose, of course... but it would be appreciated if you refrained from being rude to those who do it differently. And that's a generic 'you' by the way, aimed at both sides of the discussion... Keep it civil, folks.

insaniak wrote:And just as many don't, because people have completely different opinions as to just what the 'common sense' approach actually is.

"Sense" is not common. Never has been, never will be.

CT GAMER wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant because in the sequence of time the shooting and explosion happens before combat begins. I'm a big time SM fanboy, but even the best soldiers would have their concentration on combat broken by their transport exploding. The only flaw with this logic is say that something blows up next to them that they didn't disembark from, they still get to charge.

Ok, so reading this I am confused...(might be because all my DE vehicles are open topped...). In the original scenario, they had already disembarked, so couldnt they assault anyway as long as they dont run or fire rapid fire or heavy weapons?? Or am I missing something cause I am so used to using "Armoured in cardboard" open=topped vehicles?

I don't think Open-Topped vehicles are affected because being Open-Topped is neither an 'upgrade' nor a 'special rule', and that is what is denied by the FAQ.

Silly question..... Why were you dropping an OB that close to the Raider?

CT GAMER wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

they ran down the ramp are 6" away and behind thy hear the sound of their landraider being obliterated. i could see how they might not get to use the frag launchers that are ON THE LANDRAIDER which has been destroyed.

Fluff is not a means to justify a rules argument (while often logical, you can almost always find a fluff argument to counter the point as well).

The FAQ wording is what must be used.

the faq says no... so id say no. simple done and done

Galador wrote:Ok, so reading this I am confused...(might be because all my DE vehicles are open topped...). In the original scenario, they had already disembarked, so couldnt they assault anyway as long as they dont run or fire rapid fire or heavy weapons?? Or am I missing something cause I am so used to using "Armoured in cardboard" open=topped vehicles?

Not if the vehicle moved before you disembarked.

helgrenze wrote:Silly question..... Why were you dropping an OB that close to the Raider?

Lol, I never did. This is all in answer to a purely theoretical question.

The answer would be yes.

The rules for Assault vehicles 'Models disembarking from any access point on a land raider can launch an assault on the turn they do so'. The rules for the Crusader state 'Any unit charging into close combat on the same turn as it disembarks from a Crusader or Redeemer count as having frag grenades'

The unit disembarked, and for the rest of the turn count as having frag grenades regardless of what happens to the Crusader that they exited from. Because they exited from an access point on the LRC they can launch an assault.

The reason that you can't assault if it explodes while a unit is in a LR is they never exited through an access point.

pk1 wrote:The answer would be yes.

The rules for Assault vehicles 'Models disembarking from any access point on a land raider can launch an assault on the turn they do so'. The rules for the Crusader state 'Any unit charging into close combat on the same turn as it disembarks from a Crusader or Redeemer count as having frag grenades'

The unit disembarked, and for the rest of the turn count as having frag grenades regardless of what happens to the Crusader that they exited from. Because they exited from an access point on the LRC they can launch an assault.

The reason that you can't assault if it explodes while a unit is in a LR is they never exited through an access point.

FAQ explicitly states that this is not case. Easiest way to understand is to think it like this: We only check LR's special rules at relevant phase. So let's say I have terminators in LR. In movement phase LR moves cruising speed and I disembark terminators. Note that the special rules from LR don't apply yet.
Then, at assault phase I want to assault with my terminators. Brb says that I cannot do this. But if the LR is still alive at this point, I can use the assault vehicle special rule and launch the assault. If LR is destroyed before assault phase, then I cannot assault with terminators as nothing on the field allows them to break the rules in brb.

And before making the argument that this rule makes no "sense", remember that splitting units actions into movement, shooting and assault that always happen in this order makes no sense whatsoever. And lets not even go into the "you go, I go"...

Trivial way to change this example to make "sense", would just assume that movement and shooting phases are in fact partially overlapping, and the terminators had to bail out of exploding land raider instead of assaulting out from it like they planned.

Essentially - you are trying to assault, and would normally be denied as you exited a vehicle which had moved.

So you pint to the special rule allowing you to still assault - oh wait, you cant, as the item giving you the special rule doesnt exist.

It doesn't matter what phase the unit disembarked during- they would not be allowed to assault if the vehicle had moved. The only reason the unit can assault is because the LR gives a special rule allowing the unit to do so. However, since the LR is wrecked prior to the assault phase wherein the special rule would apply, the unit is unable to take advantage of that special rule. This issue is the same as if your Sanguinary Priest was killed during the shooting phase, and you wanted to use his FNP bubble during the assault phase. The thing that enabled the ability isn't there anymore, so the ability is gone, too.

And fluff-wise this makes sense, as the assault is enabled because the loading ramp shoots grenades or something like that to give the assaulting unit the upper hand. Since the LR is wrecked, it cannot complete this action, therefore the unit cannot assault.

Not that fluff matters, but this time it's actually congruent.

BRB FAQ page 5 wrote:Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule.

It says embarked passengers, not disembarked passengers. The question of what happens to disembarked passengers is not answered by this ruling.
Call it an odd and unanticipated event by the rule writers. We all know it won't be the first one. Apply the golden rule and work from there.

My perspective: if the benefit is clearly already given, like assault doors allowing easy egress, it cannot be lost as the benefit was provided in full before the vehicle was destroyed. If it's something like grenade launchers, I would assume the launchers would need to be firing during the actual assault to be effective. As they are no longer around during the assault no bonus could be conferred.

Fafnir13 wrote:It says embarked passengers, not disembarked passengers.

It's an example to illustrate the point, not an exhaustive list of every possible situation.

The point being made is that from the moment the vehicle is destroyed, its special rules no longer apply. Whether or not the unit is on board when the vehicle is destroyed, the assault vehicle rule has no actual effect until after the vehicle is longer on the table... and the FAQ is saying that means that it no longer applies.

Fafnir13 wrote:

BRB FAQ page 5 wrote:Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule.

It says embarked passengers, not disembarked passengers. The question of what happens to disembarked passengers is not answered by this ruling.

Yes it is. The underlined part is the RULE, the rest is an EXAMPLE.

Fafnir13 wrote:it cannot be lost as the benefit was provided in full before the vehicle was destroyed

False. The benefit is being able to assault even when you just disembarked from a moving, close topped transport.
Since the transport died in the shooting phase (ie - before assault) the benefit can not have been provided in full.

Benefits granted by the vehicle cease to be in effect after the vehicle is destroyed.

Lets say instead of a ramp, the vehicle has a big fan blowing the unit toward the enemy to enable the assault. Then it would make perfect sense that they could no longer assault after the vehicle is destroyed. The rules can't allow for thousands of exceptions so they must be simplified.

The price to pay is in this one highly unlikely event the fluff doesn't fit the rule. Or make up your own fluff. The terminators stop to look at the exploded vehicle instead of charging. Perhaps their attack is disrupted by the blast but they're not significantly injured.

insaniak wrote:

And just as many don't, because people have completely different opinions as to just what the 'common sense' approach actually is.

Can a doctor/nurse/EMT perfrom his duties after someone kills him?

We can speak in generic terms about "different opinions" as a defense of the indefensible, but we have two pretty specific instances here we are talking about with a pretty clear sequence of events that makes that defense a little weak.

1. A medic (apothecary) dies

2. someone is THEN injured/killed

3. sadly the medic is ALREADY dead and so cant provide care

Same specific instance of sequence with the land Raider:

1. Squad being transported runs down assault ramp and is now outside the vehicle on their way toward the enemy

2. land Raide THEN blows up AFTER they have already left it.

3. The ramp has already been used to exit the vehicle so it's destruction cant effect an action that has already taken place


Both instances are pretty clear cut examples of common sense application.

wonky FAQS and typical GW ambiguity don't change this, and I will always give my opponent the benefit of common sense over ambiguity/silly FAQ madness evey time.

CT GAMER wrote:wonky FAQS and typical GW ambiguity don't change this, and I will always give my opponent the benefit of common sense over ambiguity/silly FAQ madness evey time.

So you're arguing how you would play it, not what the actual rules are?

That's great - and I have no objections to it. But please state that in the future as the YMDC tenets ask you to.

CT GAMER wrote:

insaniak wrote:

And just as many don't, because people have completely different opinions as to just what the 'common sense' approach actually is.

Can a doctor/nurse/EMT perfrom his duties after someone kills him?

We can speak in generic terms about "different opinions" as a defense of the indefensible, but we have two pretty specific instances here we are talking about with a pretty clear sequence of events that makes that defense a little weak.

1. A medic (apothecary) dies

2. someone is THEN injured/killed

3. sadly the medic is ALREADY dead and so cant provide care

Same specific instance of sequence with the land Raider:

1. Squad being transported runs down assault ramp and is now outside the vehicle on their way toward the enemy

2. land Raide THEN blows up AFTER they have already left it.

3. The ramp has already been used to exit the vehicle so it's destruction cant effect an action that has already taken place


Both instances are pretty clear cut examples of common sense application.

wonky FAQS and typical GW ambiguity don't change this, and I will always give my opponent the benefit of common sense over ambiguity/silly FAQ madness evey time.

A missile launcher hits my preditor and blows off the main gun, never the sponsons every-single-time. I'd be ok if you randomized which gun you take off to be more "fluffy".

An (medic) apothecary never stays behind to save a wounded casualty. Healthy soldiers never leave combat to save an injured one.

A fluff description leaves a lot more to interpretation that you're giving here. The rules help describe the battle and allow for tactical play. Reality is never that simple.

Jimsolo wrote:Okay, here's the question, which came up in a different thread. A unit of my Terminators hops out of a Land Raider in the movement phase. During the shooting phase, I scatter an Orbital Bombardment onto the Land Raider, and get an Explodes result. (Don't worry, all the Terminators survived.) Can the Termies launch an assault in their Assault phase?

One school of thought says yes, since they disembarked from a vehicle with the Assault Vehicle rule.

The other says they cannot, since the tank is no longer on the table, and thus the Assault Vehicle rule no longer applies.

What say you?

The thing that allowed them to charge no longer exists so they can't.

The thing that prevented them from charging (if it did not have the Assault Rule) no longer exists so they can.

So they can and they can't. Glad I cleared this up for you all......

CT GAMER wrote:

insaniak wrote:

And just as many don't, because people have completely different opinions as to just what the 'common sense' approach actually is.

Can a doctor/nurse/EMT perfrom his duties after someone kills him?

[snipped text]

Following this line of logic misunderstands the abstraction used in creating a turn based game. Theoretically all actions in a game turn happen simultaneously. It is only the requirement for one person to be running all actions and consequences in a combat engagement that requires things to be considered to be happening in a particular order.

In the flow of the game certain actions and consequences might occur, but the order is entirely arbitrary and represents the real actions that real individuals would be doing over the abstracted game turn time. It says in a number of places that the movement, assault and shooting rules are supposed to represent units moving carefully over terrain, taking shots when they can as targets appear and dissapear. The soldiers do not run forward, suddenly stop to fire and then race off again to assault a target, its all part of a single longer maneuver.

In a turn the following things are said to have occurred - vehicle moves, troops disembark and try to assault, vehicle explodes. This could be used to support either argument I suppose, as it is impossible to order things correctly.

Its a very low probability event, and personally I think its a prime example for a roll-off situation as it would randomise the effective order of action and consequence in the turn. Any time such a thing occurs, roll to see what happens this time around. Do the teerminators get their assault off just in the nick of time before their transport is immolated, or do they have to stumble past the burning wreckage?

Boggy79 wrote:
The thing that prevented them from charging (if it did not have the Assault Rule) no longer exists so they can.

So they can and they can't. Glad I cleared this up for you all......

Did they disembark from a moving vehicle? Yes. So they cannot assault

Did the vehicle have upgrades or special rules that would let them assault? YEs, but it got destroyed so it doesnt count any longer.

Easy

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Boggy79 wrote:
The thing that prevented them from charging (if it did not have the Assault Rule) no longer exists so they can.

So they can and they can't. Glad I cleared this up for you all......

Did they disembark from a moving vehicle? Yes. So they cannot assault

Did the vehicle have upgrades or special rules that would let them assault? YEs, but it got destroyed so it doesnt count any longer.

Easy

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soa unit exited a vehicle using it's assault ramp, but then later the vehicle gets destroyed so they never ran down the ramp or exited the vehicle?

Brain hurts, must stab out own eyes....

CT GAMER wrote:
Soa unit exited a vehicle using it's assault ramp, but then later the vehicle gets destroyed so they never ran down the ramp or exited the vehicle?

Brain hurts, must stab out own eyes....

Actually, there is trivial way to explain this: The vehicle got destroyed as they were about to disembark, and thus they were disoriented. Fact that turn is played movement->shooting->assault has absolutely nothing to do with the order of the actions game is supposed to "simulate", it's just an abstraction. I agree that it's poor abstraction, but separate player turns is even worse.

Also, the ramp in LR has absolutely nothing to do with Assault Vehicle special rule. It works just as fine when disembarking from the side doors, which means the Assault vehicle rule must have some other "fluffy" explanation than "LR has ramp ín front of vehicle, instead of back like in Rhino".

I think there may be some confusion here with regards to what scenario people are talking about.

(1) Unit disembarking before the vehicle moved. In this case I believe that according to the BRB the unit that disembark can assault providing they do not perform actions that will prevent them from assaulting (rapid fire, for instance). The fact that they disembark from a rhino or LR or the fact that the rhino/LR rams another vehicle and explodes will have no bearing no the unit's ability to assault. I will say, though, that the frag launcher from the LR:C would have perished with the vehicle so that bonus can no longer be applied.

(2) Unit disembarking, or forced to disembark, after the vehicle moved. I think this is what the FAQ is trying to clarify.

Cladmir wrote:I think there may be some confusion here with regards to what scenario people are talking about.

(1) Unit disembarking before the vehicle moved. In this case I believe that according to the BRB the unit that disembark can assault providing they do not perform actions that will prevent them from assaulting (rapid fire, for instance). The fact that they disembark from a rhino or LR or the fact that the rhino/LR rams another vehicle and explodes will have no bearing no the unit's ability to assault. I will say, though, that the frag launcher from the LR:C would have perished with the vehicle so that bonus can no longer be applied.

(2) Unit disembarking, or forced to disembark, after the vehicle moved. I think this is what the FAQ is trying to clarify.

#1 is an interesting take on this scenario. For arguments sake I'll have a shot at it.

Lets look at it the other way:

Units may move and assault unless otherwise restricted.

1) The unit disembarked from a vehicle so they cannot assault.
2) Its open topped or assault which removes that restriction. They can now assault.
3) The vehicle is destroyed, but nothing has put the restriction back in place that prevents them from assaulting.

If the ability to assault is an ability the unit has that is removed and replaced, then by exiting the vehicle that ability has been replaced. Simply destroying the vehicle does not put back that restriction that they cannot assault.

Nemesor Dave wrote:1) The unit disembarked from a vehicle so they cannot assault.

False.

BRB page 67 wrote:If the vehicle has not yet moved, then the
passengers may disembark and move normally.
The vehicle can also then move normally.
The disembarked models may shoot (counting as
moving), and may assault as normal.

CT GAMER wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Boggy79 wrote:
The thing that prevented them from charging (if it did not have the Assault Rule) no longer exists so they can.

So they can and they can't. Glad I cleared this up for you all......

Did they disembark from a moving vehicle? Yes. So they cannot assault

Did the vehicle have upgrades or special rules that would let them assault? YEs, but it got destroyed so it doesnt count any longer.

Easy

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soa unit exited a vehicle using it's assault ramp, but then later the vehicle gets destroyed so they never ran down the ramp or exited the vehicle?

Brain hurts, must stab out own eyes....

I'm glad you got my sarcasm CT GAMER.

Being serious I do agree with you Nosferatu but I can see where the OP is coming from. If you think of it in the same was as Initiative steps in combat it becomes pretty clear.

So this would also apply to units that disembarked an Open-Topped transport, right? As it's the transport that has the OT rule.

Personally I can see both sides, but denying the assault isn't really that unfair IMO. After all it requires that the player totalled his own vehicle which is already rare enough.

One other question though... Is there any vehicle special rule that disallows assaults? That one would also be void if you blew up the vehicle, which goes a bit against the "shocked at the destruction of their ride" explanation.

Spetulhu wrote:So this would also apply to units that disembarked an Open-Topped transport, right? As it's the transport that has the OT rule.

Is Open-Topped a special rule? Honestly, I don't remember if it is a special rule or unit type.

Open topped is not a special rule. It's a vehicle type like "skimmer" or "fast".

copper.talos wrote:Open topped is not a special rule. It's a vehicle type like "skimmer" or "fast".

If this is true, then the FAQ ruling should have no effect on Open-Topped vehicles, as being Open-Topped (and the advantages thereof) is not a special rule nor upgrade.

It's definitely not a special rule/upgrade. I see my necron codex that a ccb is
Unit type: Vehicle (Fast, Open-topped, Skimmer)
Wargear: .....
Special Rules: ...

helgrenze wrote:Silly question..... Why were you dropping an OB that close to the Raider?

Desperation, likely.

On-topic, though. What I'd do is use the FAQ ruling for anyone that really wanted to protest, but use the "My dudes are already out of this Land Raider, so it no longer matters" version with anyone who thinks like me and that I couldn't convince in less than 15 seconds.

RAW states that "any unit that disembarkes may assault..." Since they have already fulfilled the first condition (Disembarked) that should carry on to the second condition (Can assault).

If you have an apothecary and when you are rolling for FnP for him and the unit he is in, if he fails his FnP save, does the rest of the FnP saves count? They do because they have already started to happen.

If RAW was as such "Units can disembark as normal from this vehicle. Units can then assault as normal in the Assault phase" I would agree that the could not assault. However since the condition has already started then it is carried through.

Nemesor Dave wrote:#1 is an interesting take on this scenario. For arguments sake I'll have a shot at it.

Lets look at it the other way:

Units may move and assault unless otherwise restricted.

1) The unit disembarked from a vehicle that moved in the Movement phase so they cannot assault.
2) Its open topped or assault which removes that restriction. They can now assault.
3) The vehicle is destroyed, but nothing has put the restriction back in place that prevents them from assaulting.

If the ability to assault is an ability the unit has that is removed and replaced, then by exiting the vehicle that ability has been replaced. Simply destroying the vehicle does not put back that restriction that they cannot assault.

I edited #1, hope that was okay.

Your #2 does in fact remove that restriction, but that restriction is only removed in the Assault phase. Look at it this way.

Movement phase: Vehicle moves so the unit may not assault.
Shooting phase: Nothing happens to the vehicle
Assault phase: The vehicle has the assault vehicle special rule which allows the unit to assault. So the Terminators are free to assault.

Second Scenario;

Movement phase: Vehicle moves so the unit may not assault.
Shooting phase: The vehicle is destroyed.
Assault phase: The vehicle had the assault vehicle special rule which would have allowed the unit to assault. But the vehicle is gone and as such any special rule it had ceases to work. There is no assault vehicle rule that would allow the disembarked unit to assault. So the Terminators are not allowed to assault.

time wizard wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:#1 is an interesting take on this scenario. For arguments sake I'll have a shot at it.

Lets look at it the other way:

Units may move and assault unless otherwise restricted.

1) The unit disembarked from a vehicle that moved in the Movement phase so they cannot assault.
2) Its open topped or assault which removes that restriction. They can now assault.
3) The vehicle is destroyed, but nothing has put the restriction back in place that prevents them from assaulting.

If the ability to assault is an ability the unit has that is removed and replaced, then by exiting the vehicle that ability has been replaced. Simply destroying the vehicle does not put back that restriction that they cannot assault.

I edited #1, hope that was okay.

Your #2 does in fact remove that restriction, but that restriction is only removed in the Assault phase. Look at it this way.

Movement phase: Vehicle moves so the unit may not assault.
Shooting phase: Nothing happens to the vehicle
Assault phase: The vehicle has the assault vehicle special rule which allows the unit to assault. So the Terminators are free to assault.

Second Scenario;

Movement phase: Vehicle moves so the unit may not assault.
Shooting phase: The vehicle is destroyed.
Assault phase: The vehicle had the assault vehicle special rule which would have allowed the unit to assault. But the vehicle is gone and as such any special rule it had ceases to work. There is no assault vehicle rule that would allow the disembarked unit to assault. So the Terminators are not allowed to assault.

I don't believe the FAQ specifies phase, so your "Second Scenario" is irrelevant. The thing allowing the Terminators to assault after the vehicle moved was the Assault Ramp, which no longer exists. The special rule preventing them from assaulting was the rule about vehicle movement, with also no longer exists. Per the FAQ, it seems the terminators would still be eligible to assault.

(Except that the FAQ contradicts itself and says they may not assault.)

whitedragon wrote:I don't believe the FAQ specifies phase, so your "Second Scenario" is irrelevant. The thing allowing the Terminators to assault after the vehicle moved was the Assault Ramp, which no longer exists. The special rule preventing them from assaulting was the rule about vehicle movement, with also no longer exists. Per the FAQ, it seems the terminators would still be eligible to assault.

(Except that the FAQ contradicts itself and says they may not assault.)

There is no special rule preventing them from assaulting - it's a normal BRB rule. Therefore it's still enforced. Therefore they can't assault.

CT GAMER wrote:Both instances are pretty clear cut examples of common sense application.

Sure. Another example of common sense application is to accept that the game rules are an abstraction rather than a simulation, and sometimes that abstraction leads to situations where rules interactions don't quite match real world logic.

Models firing rapid fire weapons at max range don't actually fire just a single round. Nor do they fire exactly 2 rounds when firing at short range.
Plasma guns don't actually overheat and kill their bearer 1 out of every 6 shots.
Company Standards don't actually inflict wounds on enemy models just by waving about.
Skimmers don't actually move in specific timed bursts of movement, finishing each the exact same height above the ground.
Battleships don't actually sail around London buying real estate. Although that might be a different game...

All of these are abstractions that we accept for the sake of playing a turn-based game with static models.

CT GAMER wrote:Soa unit exited a vehicle using it's assault ramp, but then later the vehicle gets destroyed so they never ran down the ramp or exited the vehicle?

No, they exited the vehicle. But the rule that would have let them assault after doing that is no longer in play.

It's not really as complicated as you're trying to make it.

whitedragon wrote:
I don't believe the FAQ specifies phase, so your "Second Scenario" is irrelevant. The thing allowing the Terminators to assault after the vehicle moved was the Assault Ramp, which no longer exists. The special rule preventing them from assaulting was the rule about vehicle movement, with also no longer exists. Per the FAQ, it seems the terminators would still be eligible to assault.
(Except that the FAQ contradicts itself and says they may not assault.)

Just out of curiosity, in what Codex does the LR have special rule "Assault Ramp"? Neither C:SM, C:SW,C:BA nor C:GK mentions such rule. In all those codices the rule is called "Assault Vehicle".
Second, you're just plaing wrong saying that the rule that is preventing them from assaulting is a "special" rule. It's not a special rule at all. For example, normal LR has two special rules: PoTMS and Assault Vehicle.

And FAQ doesn't need to specify "in previous phase", it was just used to make the example easier to parse.

whitedragon wrote:I don't believe the FAQ specifies phase, so your "Second Scenario" is irrelevant. The thing allowing the Terminators to assault after the vehicle moved was the Assault Ramp, which no longer exists. The special rule preventing them from assaulting was the rule about vehicle movement, with also no longer exists. Per the FAQ, it seems the terminators would still be eligible to assault.

(Except that the FAQ contradicts itself and says they may not assault.)

You're quite correct that the FAQ doesn't specify phase. It doesn't specify 'turn' either. What it says is that if the vehicle with the special rule is destroyed, then the special rules no longer applies.

I merely broke it down into the 3 phases that constitute the turn.

My point was that they were prevented from assaulting by the rule that says you can't assault from a vehicle that moved.
The special rule that allows them to do so it the Assault Vehicle rule, granted them by the land raider.
The FAQ clarifies that when the land raider is gone, so is that special rule.
That's all.

Let us see:

Scenario 1:
Movement Phase: LR moves --> Termi disembark
Shooting Phase: LR shoots
Assault Phase: Termi assaults
Everyone agrees with Scenario 1

Scenario 2:
Movement Phase: LR moves --> Termi stays inside
Shooting Phase: Friendly vindicators shoots and scatters into LR --> LR explodes --> Termi falls out
Assault Phase: Termi cannot assaults based on FAQ
Everyone agrees with Scenario 2

Scenario 3:
Movement Phase: LR moves --> Termi disembark
Shooting Phase: Friendly vindicators shoots and scatters into LR --> LR explodes ** Note that the termi are already outside
Assault Phase: Can the terminators assault?

I'm fairly certain Scenario 3 can happen and may have happened, and is probably what all the argument is all about.

The FAQ answered it.

And what have we all learned?

Don't shoot your own vehicles.

puma713 wrote:And what have we all learned?

Don't shoot your own vehicles.

Pretty much.... I wonder if the following is legal or possible, rule wise.

An LR roles up to a group of Lychguard w/ their shield thing and unload a unit of terminators. The LR shoots its MM at the lychguard, it bounced back on the LR, destroying it. The terminators are now stuck in the open and cannot assault.

Thoughts?

As per the FAQ, which has a simple unambiguous single word answer of "YES", then they cannot assault.

A general rule, which isnt a special rule of the vehicle, disallows them from assaulting - when blown up, this restriction still applies, as per the FAQ

A special rule would have allowed them to assault but, per the entirely unambiguous FAQ is LOST as soon as the vehicle was wrecked. They no longer have permission to assault. Therefore they cannot assault.

It's really THAT SIMPLE.

Avoid doing things to destroy your vehicle if you plan to assault? Not hard...

It is like when people move flat out right into dangerous terrain and crash and cry when everyone dies... well, don't risk blowing yourself up and you won't have an issue!

It is not like it is common to be in a situation where this would come up and if it does, you only did it to yourself so take your punishment.

Silly question then. How is this any different from an open topped vehicle blowing up after the troops disembarked? The open topped special rule would no longer apply and the squad wouldn't be able to assault?

From the RAW being quoted in various places on this thread I think the difference is that "open topped" is a vehicle type, rather than a special rule.

Flinty wrote:From the RAW being quoted in various places on this thread I think the difference is that "open topped" is a vehicle type, rather than a special rule.

This.

Open topped, while allowing similar actions, is not comparable to Assault Vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote:Open topped, while allowing similar actions, is not comparable to Assault Vehicle.

But it's still gone if you managed to blow it up, isn't it?

Irrelevant. Reread the FAQ, notice it only talks about *special rules* or *upgrades*, and realise that that doesnt include *unit type*

Yea, I would say what is the vehicle type of a DE skimmer or Trukk versus what is the vehicle type of a Land Raider?

Brother Ramses wrote:Yea, I would say what is the vehicle type of a DE skimmer or Trukk versus what is the vehicle type of a Land Raider?

Open topped skimmer or open top vehicle vs tank

optimusprime14 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Yea, I would say what is the vehicle type of a DE skimmer or Trukk versus what is the vehicle type of a Land Raider?

Open topped skimmer or open top vehicle vs tank

And that is what allows assaults after destroyed from a skimmer and not from a tank that has assault ramps. Pretty straightforward.

I thought destroyed vehicles were Type Wreck or Crater. But seriously, no matter for me - it's not really coming up that often. ;-)

insaniak wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Both instances are pretty clear cut examples of common sense application.

Sure. Another example of common sense application is to accept that the game rules are an abstraction rather than a simulation, and sometimes that abstraction leads to situations where rules interactions don't quite match real world logic.

Models firing rapid fire weapons at max range don't actually fire just a single round. Nor do they fire exactly 2 rounds when firing at short range.
Plasma guns don't actually overheat and kill their bearer 1 out of every 6 shots.
Company Standards don't actually inflict wounds on enemy models just by waving about.
Skimmers don't actually move in specific timed bursts of movement, finishing each the exact same height above the ground.
Battleships don't actually sail around London buying real estate. Although that might be a different game...

All of these are abstractions that we accept for the sake of playing a turn-based game with static models.

CT GAMER wrote:Soa unit exited a vehicle using it's assault ramp, but then later the vehicle gets destroyed so they never ran down the ramp or exited the vehicle?

No, they exited the vehicle. But the rule that would have let them assault after doing that is no longer in play.

It's not really as complicated as you're trying to make it.

I've got to agree, the rule is referring to a land raider that blows up, its passengers survive and then they try to assault. In which case no, you cannot assault. However, once you disembark you disembark, youve moved out of the LR and thus benefit from the assault ramp. I can't imagine this ever even coming up in a game wow

IMHO I think it's like whenever you've been watching a tv show or movie and a dying character gives over their power or blessing even though they're "gone" the blessing remains.

So, again - imho - I think they get the assault benefit

Logic supports you Gharron FAQ do not. :(

I think it is a bad call for the FAQ.

Nemesor Dave and Luide both gave great replies to help frame it to make sense. While the "Assault Vehicle" special rule is meant to indicate specialized tactics or equipment that the Land Raider employs, the fact that there is a catastrophic explosion not six inches from their fannies provides ample excuse for the terminators to be a little distracted and not be able to complete their charge.

I took it to mean it is a vehicle that is easy to get out of quickly and in combat formation, kinda like the difference between a Blackhawk and Chinook Helicopter, once your out and ready to rock and roll what ever happens to your ride ain't gunna change that.

Mind you having it explode nearby is a good point, but doesn't really follow if they get out, then move away then the taxi blows up.

Magpie wrote:
I think it is a bad call for the FAQ.

Agreed. I still think it was only meant to apply to embarked units, by way of the example they gave. Chances are GW did not even consider this exact circumstance being discussed here. It's not something that should come up too often.

I'll agree that, as written and FAQ'd, the unit cannot assault.
I'd also report it as a bug if this was software.

the only question here is whether or not the normal restriction of being unable to assault after disembarking get lifted in the movement phase (ie when they disembark) or when they are going to assault, if its the former then they would get to assault unless they fire a RF weapon (they count as having moved so therefore cannot fire heavy weapons, unless relentless, which allows them to assault after firing heavy or RF weapons) however, it its the later which is what the majority of people are saying then of course you wouldn't

getting out after your vehicle has moved gives you the 'time' to ready yourself for the assualt, open topped and assault vehicles give you that opportunity (other vehicles just assume that its much harder to get out of), whereas getting out of a vehicle which has just wrecked or exploded, you have to regain your 'composure' (pinning check) and sometimes don't (failing pinning) so that eats up the 'time', and also it would be happening while you are firing at the squad you which to assault (which in theory would happen while you're charging but as moving models an inch roll dice move an inch roll etc is troublesome its easier to separate it into different phases, models that run forfeit their shooting and assault because they are moving faster than normal and can't see (models with fleet are good at running and can keep their eyes on their opponent while moving that fast and therefore can assault after running)

as for the case of it being a 'distraction' in a battle there is going to be a lot of explosions, being distracted by something like that is not fitting of a unit which is fearless (even though its only termies in example), why should anyone else care about their tank exploding, if fact if the tank behind me was shot at and exploded I would want to charge into whatever killed it and take revenge, killing all in my path

RAW I would probably say no due to faq, although I could go either way

RAI I say yes, as I believe the restriction should be lifted when it gets applied....ie I normal can't do this later but because I JUST did this I can

It doesnt get "lifted" until they try to assault, because that is whaen the rules for Assault Ramp are used.

Bloodclaw - no, wrong. Reread the FAQ. Note the words "For example", after the unambiguous YES answer. The EXAMPLE included an embarked unit, but that doesnt alter one jot the answer of YES, the assault ramp rule is lost.

Obviously the FAQ is referring to instances where a unit emergency disembarks from a destroyed transport and doesn't gain the benefit of units disembarking via assault ramps being able to assault. If they disembarked prior to its destruction, a normal disembarkation using the assault ramps, when they were fine and dandy, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to charge.

Yeh I agree faust, the only requirement of the special rule is that the unit has disembarked form a land raider that turn. No other ongoing association is required.

I guess it is more of an attribute of the vehicle rather than a special ability if you know what I mean.

Magpie wrote:Yeh I agree faust, the only requirement of the special rule is that the unit has disembarked form a land raider that turn. No other ongoing association is required.

I guess it is more of an attribute of the vehicle rather than a special ability if you know what I mean.

False. The example refers to an emergency disembarkation. The answer to the question is an unequivocal yes.
Pretending it only means emergency disembarks because that's what the example shows is like saying you can only add 1 and 1 to get 2 because that's the example used to show addition.

Edit: and Assault Vehicle is absolutely a special rule pertaining to Land Raiders.

Settle down petal we are all pretty much in agreement as to how the FAQ applies to the rule, just don't think it is very sensible that's all.

Magpie wrote:Settle down petal we are all pretty much in agreement as to how the FAQ applies to the rule, just don't think it is very sensible that's all.

Indirect insults are unlikely to cause someone to have any respect for your argument - especially as you agreed with the person who was wrong in their argument, applied another incorrect argument (ongoing effect) thus appearing to not understand the difference between a rule and an exemplar of a rule.

I also don't think it holds much water to have a crack at an implied insult (which it isn't) and respond with a series of implied insults, suggesting some one is wrong in their argument when they are expressing an opinion is a far greater sin then suggesting someone chill out.

I don't agree that the cited instance is a particularly good exemplar of the ceasing of a vehicle special abilities upon its destruction, as it is open to interpretation.

I also don't think that an attribute of a vehicle should be cited as a special ability. A big door that is easy to get out of is going to be a big door that is easy to get out of regardless of the condition of the vehicle and further the unit had long since availed itself of the big door and its fate after they have gone through it is irrelevant.

This is a case where a very clear rule is being eroded by the FAQ. In the order of precedence the FAQ are subservient to the rules, indeed the option to ignore them is given by GW. That's the road I'd be taking in this instance.

Magpie wrote:I also don't think that an attribute of a vehicle should be cited as a special ability. A big door that is easy to get out of is going to be a big door that is easy to get out of regardless of the condition of the vehicle and further the unit had long since availed itself of the big door and its fate after they have gone through it is irrelevant.

Models can't assault after disembarking from a moving Land Raider just because the model has a big door on the front. They can do so because the Land Raider has a special rule that allows it. The big door on the model is just a visual representation of that special rule.

This isn't a case of an attribute of the vehicle being cited as a special ability. The Assault Vehicle rule is a special ability of the vehicle.

insaniak wrote:

Magpie wrote:I also don't think that an attribute of a vehicle should be cited as a special ability. A big door that is easy to get out of is going to be a big door that is easy to get out of regardless of the condition of the vehicle and further the unit had long since availed itself of the big door and its fate after they have gone through it is irrelevant.

Models can't assault after disembarking from a moving Land Raider just because the model has a big door on the front. They can do so because the Land Raider has a special rule that allows it. The big door on the model is just a visual representation of that special rule.

This isn't a case of an attribute of the vehicle being cited as a special ability. The Assault Vehicle rule is a special ability of the vehicle.

I accept what the rule is if you choose to accept the FAQ ruling, I am simply saying I don't accept the FAQ and why and I am not alone in that. No biggie.

The FAQ specifically states that the unit embarked cannot assault and does not say anything about a unit that has already disembarked. Therefor this specific FAQ does not apply.

Both sides can be easily argued due to this FAQ. However, I'm going to have to side on the squad can assault since it met the criteria for assaulting prior to the destruction of the vehicle and the rule then applies to the squad as soon as the squad disembarks, NOT when it assaults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, I do agree that assault granades do not apply because granades are used during the assault phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I want to change my answer, RAW, they cannot assault, but I think it's stupid for the record.

Sothas wrote:The FAQ specifically states that the unit embarked cannot assault and does not say anything about a unit that has already disembarked. Therefor this specific FAQ does not apply.

The FAQ only refers to embarked units specifically in the example. An example is not an exhaustive list... it's just an example.

The actual FAQ response is a blanket answer.

... and the rule then applies to the squad as soon as the squad disembarks, NOT when it assaults.

Why would you attempt to ascertain whether or not the squad can assault at any point other than the start of the assault phase when you are supposed to ascertain whether or not your units can assault?

Sothas wrote:Actually I want to change my answer, RAW, they cannot assault, but I think it's stupid for the record.

I'd say that RAW they can assault FAQ they can't

The FAQ doesn't change the RAW, it just clarifies what it means.

Magpie wrote:

Sothas wrote:Actually I want to change my answer, RAW, they cannot assault, but I think it's stupid for the record.

I'd say that RAW they can assault FAQ they can't

No, RAW they cannot assualt, because RAW the special rule no longer applies. Its actually consistent with other rules on when you determine if a special rule applies or not - so youre not only ignoring the rules, but doing so from an inconsistent opinion.

Oh, and they werent implied insults - i was pointing out that getting upset that someone was correcting your given argument by saying that you didnt actually mean the given argument is a fairly detrimental way to argue. Or, in other words, realise that we can only derive your meaning from what you actually write, your intent is fairly difficult to determine without being mind readers!

Which RAW says the special rule no longer applies, I can't find one?

When you come to Assault, please find the special rule that allows you to assault despte having disembarked from a non-open topped vehicle that moved.

Oh wait, the vehicle no longer exists, meaning its special rule no longer exists.

Same as any other special rule. Oh, and if you claim otherwise, guess how strong Sanguinary priests just got.

OK so there is no actual rule then?

Magpie wrote:OK so there is no actual rule then?

No. Which is exactly the point. RAW, they can't assault, because at the time you declare your assaults there is no special rule in play that would allow them to.


You shouldn't really need a rule that specifically says that a model's special rule no longer applies when it is destroyed, any more than you need a rule stating that a model can no longer fire a weapon in the shooting phase after it has been killed.

insaniak wrote:

Magpie wrote:OK so there is no actual rule then?

No. Which is exactly the point. RAW, they can't assault, because at the time you declare your assaults there is no special rule in play that would allow them to.


You shouldn't really need a rule that specifically says that a model's special rule no longer applies when it is destroyed, any more than you need a rule stating that a model can no longer fire a weapon in the shooting phase after it has been killed.

But an IC can still be attached to a fleeing unit after the unit is destroyed ?

Thing is the firing of the weapon is trying to shoot bullet out of something that is no longer there, Assaulting after disembarking you're already out so any effect the vehicle was giving you has been used prior to its demise.

Only until after he makes his fallback move, then you check to see that he is no longer in coherency (though one could argue that since in order to regroup you must check coherency first, you can get around this) and can thus test to regroup (maybe).

Magpie wrote:But an IC can still be attached to a fleeing unit after the unit is destroyed ?

I don't think so, no. And the fact that you would bring that up in response to a post of mine suggests that you weren't actually reading that particular thread very closely.

Thing is the firing of the weapon is trying to shoot bullet out of something that is no longer there, Assaulting after disembarking you're already out so any effect the vehicle was giving you has been used prior to its demise.

Only if the assault phase happens before its demise.

You don't declare assaults until the assault phase. So something that affects your ability to assault likewise doesn't apply until the assault phase.

insaniak wrote:

Magpie wrote:But an IC can still be attached to a fleeing unit after the unit is destroyed ?

I don't think so, no. And the fact that you would bring that up in response to a post of mine suggests that you weren't actually reading that particular thread very closely..

Sorry I thought you were saying that as you can't check coherency until the end of the movement phase the IC is still considered part of the unit and therefore still attached to it.

insaniak wrote:

Thing is the firing of the weapon is trying to shoot bullet out of something that is no longer there, Assaulting after disembarking you're already out so any effect the vehicle was giving you has been used prior to its demise.

Only if the assault phase happens before its demise.

You don't declare assaults until the assault phase. So something that affects your ability to assault likewise doesn't apply until the assault phase.

Thing is tho' it removes the effect of the movement phase so it is nullifying the actions that took place before the assault phase.

Magpie wrote:OK so there is no actual rule then?

Yes, the absence of a rule allowing them to assault is correct. That means they can't assault.

I also find it amusing (since you're bringing up other threads) that someone that thinks LOS sniping still works is trying to say that some very clear RAW are "open to interpretation" and "ignore the FAQ".

rigeld2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:OK so there is no actual rule then?

Yes, the absence of a rule allowing them to assault is correct. That means they can't assault.

I also find it amusing (since you're bringing up other threads) that someone that thinks LOS sniping still works is trying to say that some very clear RAW are "open to interpretation" and "ignore the FAQ".

Fixed the LOS sniping thing mate, bad edit.

The RAW is very clear it says any unit that disembarks from a land raider can assault, without any qualification. I was asking if there was a RAW that says that the rule would no longer apply once the unit had carried out its end of the bargain and the vehicle had gone on its merry way. There doesn't seem to be one, I was genuinely asking so I could check I wasn't missing something.

The FAQ by its own admission is a "House Rule" set which we are free to accept or reject.

Magpie wrote:The FAQ by its own admission is a "House Rule" set which we are free to accept or reject.

The FAQs aren't rules at all. They're a clarification as to how the studio interprets the rules they themselves wrote.

For the sake of discussion on these boards, they're accepted as the 'official' word on how the rules are supposed to work, because the vast majority of gamers accept them as such, and being the closest we're going to get to official answers on rules issues it would be rather pointless to ignore them.


On consideration, this thread has probably outlived its lifespan. People are free to make up their own minds as to whether or not the FAQ is broad enough to cover this specific situation, on the very rare chance that it ever actually comes up at the table. But since the discussion seems to have moved on to how the rules should be interpreted if we pretend the FAQ doesn't exist, I think we can put this one to bed.