Hi, looking for RAW RAI and HYWPI interpretations of this one.

What happens when an assault vehicle is wrecked by shooting in the opponents shooting phase? As I read the RAW they can assault in the opponents assault phase immediately following, but not in their own. That seems daft, so I think RAI and HIWPI is assault is ok on their own turn. Thoughts?

No assaulting at all RAW.
Can't assault in your opponents turn.
Can't assault in their next assault phase.

rigeld2 wrote:
No assaulting at all RAW.
Can't assault in your opponents turn.

Please provide a rules reference for this, the assault vehicle rules state

BRB wrote:Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so, even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed

That seems to give permission to charge in the opponents turn RAW. Where is that permission negated?

rigeld2 wrote:
Can't assault in their next assault phase.

Agreed, RAW, because of the above wording.

So I conclude as my original statement assault on opponents turn, not your own is RAW, assault on your own (not your opponents) is RAI and HIWPI.

Drager wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No assaulting at all RAW.
Can't assault in your opponents turn.

Please provide a rules reference for this, the assault vehicle rules state

BRB wrote:Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so, even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed

That seems to give permission to charge in the opponents turn RAW. Where is that permission negated?

BRB page 20 wrote:Choose a unit in your army that is declaring a charge and nominate the enemy unit(s) it is attempting to charge.

Context of that rule is that "your army" refers to the army owned by the player whose turn it currently is.
Assault Vehicle doesn't get around that restriction. Unless you can find a way to choose a unit in your opponents turn.

Drager wrote:So I conclude as my original statement assault on opponents turn, not your own is RAW, assault on your own (not your opponents) is RAI and HIWPI.

I'd say it is impossible to derive RAI currently, considering that the word choice in Assault Vehicle USR does look deliberate. They could have just written "can charge after disembarking" and left the "on the turn they do so" off if they wanted that. And it would have been less complex rule. Compare it to FMC Grounding rules where not losing Swooping status just looks like writers omission.
Well, it will get FAQ'd, one way or another.

I'd say it is impossible to derive RAI currently, considering that the word choice in Assault Vehicle USR does look deliberate. They could have just written "can charge after disembarking" and left the "on the turn they do so" off if they wanted that. And it would have been less complex rule. Compare it to FMC Grounding rules where not losing Swooping status just looks like writers omission.
Well, it will get FAQ'd, one way or another.

May be it's a compensation for overwatch(enemies shooting on the assault army's turn)...

rigeld2 wrote:

Drager wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No assaulting at all RAW.
Can't assault in your opponents turn.

Please provide a rules reference for this, the assault vehicle rules state

BRB wrote:Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so, even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed

That seems to give permission to charge in the opponents turn RAW. Where is that permission negated?

BRB page 20 wrote:Choose a unit in your army that is declaring a charge and nominate the enemy unit(s) it is attempting to charge.

Context of that rule is that "your army" refers to the army owned by the player whose turn it currently is.
Assault Vehicle doesn't get around that restriction. Unless you can find a way to choose a unit in your opponents turn.

What about interceptor and shooting? Very similar wording.

Drager wrote:
What about interceptor and shooting? Very similar wording.

Not at all. Interceptor specifically allows the action in the enemy's movement phase. I don't see specific allowance to work in the enemy's Assault phase in the Assault Vehicle wording.

"Can charge on the turn they do so" What other phase do you charge in?

Drager wrote:
"Can charge on the turn they do so" What other phase do you charge in?

thats an interesting point. you can charge on the turn you disembark even if the vehicle is destroyed, sounds like permission to charge in your opponents assault phase.

INTERCEPTOR:
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from reserve within its range and line of sight. tf this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.

so here a specific instance defining when a player can shoot in another players turn.

ASSAULT VEHICLE
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.

same thing as well. you can charge on a turn your vehicle is destroyed.

Turn being defined by player turn, RAW specifically says passengers assault on the turn they disembark from the vehicle, even on turns its destroyed. it gives a specific moment when a unit disembarking can declare a charge, specific trumps general rules correct?

This is exactly the same as 5th edition stating a model can assault after running if it has Fleet. This didnt allow you to assault after disembarking from a rhino, as the "cant" trumpts the "must". Here you cannot assault in your opponents turn - the rules specify you assault on your player turn - so this does not give you permission to do so.

Or, more appropriately, you may be able to charge, but only have permission to declare a charge on your turn.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This is exactly the same as 5th edition stating a model can assault after running if it has Fleet. This didnt allow you to assault after disembarking from a rhino, as the "cant" trumpts the "must". Here you cannot assault in your opponents turn - the rules specify you assault on your player turn - so this does not give you permission to do so.

Or, more appropriately, you may be able to charge, but only have permission to declare a charge on your turn.

There is no rule saying you can't assault in your opponents turn, the only reason you normally can't is because there isn't permission for it built into the basic rule structure, that permission is granted by the assault vehicle rule though so you do have permission in that specific instance.

Drunkspleen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This is exactly the same as 5th edition stating a model can assault after running if it has Fleet. This didnt allow you to assault after disembarking from a rhino, as the "cant" trumpts the "must". Here you cannot assault in your opponents turn - the rules specify you assault on your player turn - so this does not give you permission to do so.

Or, more appropriately, you may be able to charge, but only have permission to declare a charge on your turn.

There is no rule saying you can't assault in your opponents turn, the only reason you normally can't is because there isn't permission for it built into the basic rule structure, that permission is granted by the assault vehicle rule though so you do have permission in that specific instance.

Read the assault rules.
Show permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn, regardless of the assault vehicle rules potentially allowing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
"Can charge on the turn they do so" What other phase do you charge in?

Your assault phase.

Just like the rues say.

Nothing in the assault vehicle rules overrides the main assault rules.

This is just plain silly.

The phrase in question "..can charge on the turn they do so, even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed" is intended if the vehicle with one hull point left takes a dangerous terrain test, fails it, becomes immobilized and loses its last HP and wrecks. That unit may still assault.

You cannot charge in your opponents assault phase unless something in your codex specifically says so.

dufus0001 wrote:
This is just plain silly.

The phrase in question "..can charge on the turn they do so, even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed" is intended if the vehicle with one hull point left takes a dangerous terrain test, fails it, becomes immobilized and loses its last HP and wrecks. That unit may still assault.

You cannot charge in your opponents assault phase unless something in your codex specifically says so.

well RAW says assault vehicle passengers can charge the turn they disembark, even if the vehicle wrecks.

was this RAI? no of course not. RAI was for passengers to be able to assault in their next assault phase, overriding the disembarking rules. the problem arises that one needed to specify what type of turn it speaks of. (assault vehicle needs to specify game turn instead of player turn and it works just fine)

It makes no sense that an Ork Trukk immobilizes going in, passengers disembark, and they assault normally but in contrast, if you glance it to death, the same orks cannot simply just jump out and charge you the next turn. so its obviously not intended to override dangerous terrain immobilize results (because it really wasn't that big of an issue, just bad luck if you happened to roll a 1) but meant to override disembarking rules (ones where trukks go down regular bolter fire now).

Paitryn, what you don't seem to understand is that you need permission to override every restriction. For example, normally you cannot assault when you Deep Strike. Boss Zagstruk overrides that. If his unit were to Run in the Shooting phase on the turn they come in, they would also need something to override the restriction on assaulting after running.

Normally you cannot assault after disembarking a vehicle. Assault Vehicle overrides that one restriction. Where do you get permission to override the restriction on assaulting in the other player's turn?

rigeld2 wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This is exactly the same as 5th edition stating a model can assault after running if it has Fleet. This didnt allow you to assault after disembarking from a rhino, as the "cant" trumpts the "must". Here you cannot assault in your opponents turn - the rules specify you assault on your player turn - so this does not give you permission to do so.

Or, more appropriately, you may be able to charge, but only have permission to declare a charge on your turn.

There is no rule saying you can't assault in your opponents turn, the only reason you normally can't is because there isn't permission for it built into the basic rule structure, that permission is granted by the assault vehicle rule though so you do have permission in that specific instance.

Read the assault rules.
Show permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn, regardless of the assault vehicle rules potentially allowing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
"Can charge on the turn they do so" What other phase do you charge in?

Your assault phase.

Just like the rues say.

Nothing in the assault vehicle rules overrides the main assault rules.

You may not like the RAW but in this case it's very specifically allowed.

Dozer, what you don't seem to understand is that you need permission to override every restriction. For example, normally you cannot assault when you Deep Strike. Boss Zagstruk overrides that. If his unit were to Run in the Shooting phase on the turn they come in, they would also need something to override the restriction on assaulting after running.

Normally you cannot assault after disembarking a vehicle. Assault Vehicle overrides that one restriction. Where do you get permission to override the restriction on assaulting in the other player's turn?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You may not like the RAW but in this case it's very specifically allowed.

Cite the specific allowance that allows charging in the enemy turn.
The assault vehicle rules don't state that they override the restriction that exists by it being the enemies turn.
They only override the restriction put in place by disembarking.

Edit: and you must not know me very well. I love the RAW.

It's rather silly but you cannot assault after your vehicle is wrecked in your subsequent assault phase. There is an exception for Assault Vehicles--in which case they can assault the turn in which it was wrecked--but the restriction still kicks in the next turn.

I'm very much convinced that RAI is not that case--but something you would want to talk over with your opponent before the game starts. I allow my opponents to assault the next turn after their Assault Vehicle is wrecked.

And I agree that's a valid way to read the intent. I'm not sure it's correct, but it's valid.

Happyjew wrote:
Dozer, what you don't seem to understand is that you need permission to override every restriction. For example, normally you cannot assault when you Deep Strike. Boss Zagstruk overrides that. If his unit were to Run in the Shooting phase on the turn they come in, they would also need something to override the restriction on assaulting after running.

Normally you cannot assault after disembarking a vehicle. Assault Vehicle overrides that one restriction. Where do you get permission to override the restriction on assaulting in the other player's turn?

"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 destroved."

highlighted in bold. Zagstruck says you can assault the turn you deepstrike if you dont shoot in the shooting phase. Both are examples of permission to do something on a turn they are normally not allowed to do.

Turn is defined by player turn and not game turn, therefore they can charge the turn they disembark if the opposing player shoots the vehicle and destroys it in the shooting phase. The assault vehicle rule simply says you can charge the turn you disembark, not that it has to be Your turn, but just the turn they do so. Again turn is defined by player turn, not game turn.

I will go on record to say that I would never play it this way, its purely for the sake of argument, But RAW states they can assault in the opposing turn (if forced to disembark) but not in their turn (under disembarkation rules). The RAW was obviously written with game turn in mind vs player turn, but the writer used turn generically and therefore caused the confusion. Had assault vehicles ruled game turn instead of just turn, then none of this mess would be about.

The sentence you quoted only overrides the disembarking rules. You still haven't shown a rule that overrides the restriction that exists because it's not your turn.

rigeld2 wrote:
The sentence you quoted only overrides the disembarking rules. You still haven't shown a rule that overrides the restriction that exists because it's not your turn.

It specifically says I can charge the turn I disembark, EVEN ON THE TURN THE VEHICLE IS DESTROYED (caps for empasis). The caps section puts forth a specific instance in which i can assault that would normally not be allowed by the rules (as the turn my vehicle is destroyed is the opposing player turn not mine). as for the restriction:

Quote me the restriction, because honestly, I don't find one. Not even in the basic rules. The Assault phase section lays down no such restriction. (as it makes the assumption you can only charge in your assault phase) There is no phrase i find that says "unit may not assault in the opposing players turn" anywhere. The turn section lays out sequences, but also that it is "usually" done this way and has a big brick about execptions.

the assault vehicle rule granted me the ability to charge the turn i disembark, but no rule restricts me from not doing so in the opposing player turn. if you can find me a specific rule, I will be glad to retract my argument on the matter.

The assault phase rules tell you to choose units to make assault moves.
The context of those rules is the current players turn.

Remember, in a permissive rule set you must have permission to charge in your opponents turn. You don't. You have a rule overriding the disembarking restriction even on the turn the vehicle was destroyed.

Hey Paitryn--here's how it flows;

Page 9:
"Whenever a rule refers to 'a turn' it always means 'player turn' unless it specifically refers to a 'game turn'"

Page 79:
"After disembarking, 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"

Page 80:
"Wrecked. The passengers must immediately disembark in their usual manner (see page 79), save that they must end their move wholly within 3" rather than 6"."

Page 33:
"Assault Vehicle. 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 a vehicle is destroyed"


Scenario 1:
So, let's say you move your Land Raider up and a Necron player strips it of hull points making a wreck.

Disembark per the page 80 rule.
Your opponent continues his turn.
During my turn, I cannot declare a charge with my Terminators--as the vehicle was not destroyed this turn (Remember, it's always Player unless the rule says Game). Thus, I still suffer the disembarked restriction per page 79.


Scenario 2:
So, let's say you dash your Dark Eldar Raider forward and fail a difficult terrain test--making the vehicle a wreck.

Disembark per the page 80 rule.
Normally I would suffer the restricted disembarkation rules per page 79----HOWEVER
The Assault Rule kicks in, as this is the turn (Player turn) in which it was destroyed--which allows me to declare a charge.




Now is this intent? Nope--I'm as sure as I can be it is not. Is it RAW? Unfortunately, yes. Do I allow my opponents to assault after they disembark from an Assault Vehicle if it was wrecked last turn? Yep! But if someone wanted me to play it RAW and I lost my Assault Vehicle, I would be forced to agree that it was RAW.

But I do have permission to charge in my opponents turn. See the part where it says "even on a turn the vehicle is destroyed?"

Again, since my vehicle gets destroyed on my opposing players turn, I disembark, the rules say I can charge that turn. I really don't see how it cant grant permission due to the fact that turn is defined by the player turn and the turn my vehicle is destroyed is my opposing players turn and not my own. That wording is permission to do so if I ever heard it.

I'll agree that you normally cannot charge in the opposing player turn, however the rule specifically mentions a scenario in which I can.

You can charge when you disembark: agreed, that seems normal.

Even on the turn the vehicle is destroyed: Huh? I cant charge the turn the vehicle is destroyed normally because its my opposing players turn, how does this apply? It just gave me permission to do something I could not do under normal rules circumstance.

It could imply immobilized from difficult terrain, sure, but 1 hp loss is generally not going to wreck the vehicle. And if it were to imply that, the rules set is entirely too specific of an instance when it doesn't fix its own inherit problems. (such as not being able to assault in your own assault phase.)

While I agree this isnt RAI, my RAW interpretation seems to differ when it comes to how the rule is worded. The last part of the ruleset is completely unneccessary because assault vehicles rule you can charge after disembarking, exploding vehicles state you disembark so the two go hand in hand. So by adding in the section, they added a specific set of circumstances in which a player can charge when normally not allowed to even by assault vehicle rules.

I'm well aware of the permissive ruleset, but at the same time my RAW interpretation seems to permit that. Again, never intend to actually play it that way, but for sake of argument I like to play devil's advocate sometimes.

You're attempting to override 2 restrictions on assaulting (not your turn, disembarking) with one sentence that doesn't spell that out.

They included that phrase as a specific change from 5th edition where if your assault vehicle popped you could not assault.

Again, Assault Vehicle only ever deals with removing the disembark restriction and never addresses the fact that you are not given permission to declare an assault in your opponents turn.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Hey Paitryn--here's how it flows;

I'm aware of that scenario (one I have yet to see even occur- you only lose one HP for getting immobilized), but thats just one interpretation. It simply states that on a turn the vehicle is destroyed i can charge. that also includes opposing turns. again wording is unnecessary, but its there to argue about.

Paitryn wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Hey Paitryn--here's how it flows;

I'm aware of that scenario (one I have yet to see even occur- you only lose one HP for getting immobilized), but thats just one interpretation. It simply states that on a turn the vehicle is destroyed i can charge. that also includes opposing turns. again wording is unnecessary, but its there to argue about.

Yes, on a turn you disembark because the vehicle was destroyed you can assault. See how that o ly works with the disembark rules?
See how it never mentions the opposing players turn?

Paitryn wrote:

Even on the turn the vehicle is destroyed: Huh? I cant charge the turn the vehicle is destroyed normally because its my opposing players turn, how does this apply? It just gave me permission to do something I could not do under normal rules circumstance.

It could imply immobilized from difficult terrain, sure, but 1 hp loss is

To charge something, you must declare a charge. You can only do this during your Charge Sub-Phase--which is on your turn.

Regarding losing a vehicle during your turn;
A skimmer that moves Flat Out and fails a test doesn't lose a HP--it immediately becomes a wreck.
You could ram and lose your vehicle.
You could scatter and kill your own vehicle.
Imo's lightning could go off and kill your own (allied) vehicle


That's just off the top of my head--I'm sure there are other examples. I'm not sure how far you will get telling your opponent you get a unique, on their turn Charge Sub-Phase after they blow up your vehicle on their turn---you might want to let them know you plan on doing that before you guys setup .

rigeld2 wrote:
You're attempting to override 2 restrictions on assaulting (not your turn, disembarking) with one sentence that doesn't spell that out.

They included that phrase as a specific change from 5th edition where if your assault vehicle popped you could not assault.

Again, Assault Vehicle only ever deals with removing the disembark restriction and never addresses the fact that you are not given permission to declare an assault in your opponents turn.

Again, how does it not spell it out? you can charge on the turn your vehicle explodes spells that out completely. I understand RAI (change from 5th) but this isnt an RAI discussion. its about how it is interpreted as RAW. It expressed charging in my opponents turn. (turn=player turn, destroyed= opponents turn. so in the player turn my vehicle is destroyed, i disembark and can charge)

so lets break it down:

Passengers disembarking from Access
Points on a vehicle with this special rule
can charge on the turn they do so,

this overrides the first restriction, with the disembarking rules (stating that you disembark from exploding vehicles) this is all that is needed.

even
on a turn that the vehicle was destroved.

Now we get to override two. vehicles can be destroyed in both player turns.

the rule gives you permission to assault after disembarking = true.

the rule gives you permission to assault after the vehicle is destroyed = true.

no other specifications exist. It simply grants permission to assault after the vehicle is destroyed in that specific turn. The rule lays down expressed circumstances in which a player may assault.

You're absolutely incorrect. "this is all that is needed".
Without the final clause you keep getting hung up on the unit would not be able to assault if the vehicle was destroyed on their turn.
The final clause only ever modifies what came before it - the permission to assault after disembarking.

Paitryn - find permission to declare a charge on your opponents turn Cant find it? You cannot charge

rigeld I would love to see you backup your claim that there is a restriction on declaring a charge in the enemies assault phase, because I can't find any such restrictive statement.

Please, show me a rules quote that specifically says "no assaulting in the enemy assault phase"

 Drunkspleen wrote:
rigeld I would love to see you backup your claim that there is a restriction on declaring a charge in the enemies assault phase, because I can't find any such restrictive statement.

Please, show me a rules quote that specifically says "no assaulting in the enemy assault phase"

There doesn't need to be one that specifically says that.
The only player that has permission to declare charges in his assault phase is the current player.
Therefore you need permission to make that assault in your opponents assault phase.

 Drunkspleen wrote:
rigeld I would love to see you backup your claim that there is a restriction on declaring a charge in the enemies assault phase, because I can't find any such restrictive statement.

Please, show me a rules quote that specifically says "no assaulting in the enemy assault phase"

There isnt a restriction, apart from the lack of permission to declare one. It is, by nature of the ruleset, restricted from occurring as it has no permission to occur

There does not need to be a rule saying you cannot assault in the enemy assault phase. There needs to be a rule saying you can assault in the enemy assault phase.

That permission exists though, it's the Assault Vehicle rule, that says you may assault in the same turn you disembark, if you disembark in your enemies turn, then you can assault in your enemies turn.

You all realize that this only happens if the vehicle is destroyed. If you cannot assault if the vehicle isn't destroyed, then what makes you think you can just because it got wrecked?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
That permission exists though, it's the Assault Vehicle rule, that says you may assault in the same turn you disembark, if you disembark in your enemies turn, then you can assault in your enemies turn.

Oh, so if they disembark in your enemies turn, that means they can move and shoot normally too, right? Bollocks

dufus0001 wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
That permission exists though, it's the Assault Vehicle rule, that says you may assault in the same turn you disembark, if you disembark in your enemies turn, then you can assault in your enemies turn.

Oh, so if they disembark in your enemies turn, that means they can move and shoot normally too, right? Bollocks

No, because they are only given permission to shoot in "their subsequent shooting phase" which is not the enemies shooting phase and are not given permission to move, they are given permission to assault in the enemies turn though.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

dufus0001 wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
That permission exists though, it's the Assault Vehicle rule, that says you may assault in the same turn you disembark, if you disembark in your enemies turn, then you can assault in your enemies turn.

Oh, so if they disembark in your enemies turn, that means they can move and shoot normally too, right? Bollocks

No, because they are only given permission to shoot in "their subsequent shooting phase" which is not the enemies shooting phase and are not given permission to move, they are given permission to assault in the enemies turn though.

Really? You haven't proven that. You're misreading a sentence that allows assault after disembarking, but haven't once shown a rule that gives permission to assault during the enemy turn.

This is a joke right? People are trying to advocate charging in the enemy turn? This is most pathetic excuse of rules lawyering I've ever seen. If ye need to pull stunts like this to win people, maybe this isn't the game for you.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
This is a joke right? People are trying to advocate charging in the enemy turn? This is most pathetic excuse of rules lawyering I've ever seen. If ye need to pull stunts like this to win people, maybe this isn't the game for you.

Perhaps you should read the thread instead of throwing accusations like and making assumptions.

No one is arguing that's how it's played or should be played. Some think that it says that RAW but is obviously not RAI and they would not play that way.

If you don't like reading RAW debates, perhaps you should stay out of YMDC?

Its not permission to charge on another players turn Paitryn, its permission to charge if the vehicle is blown up.

What about the rest of what I said? If the assault ramp allows you to charge in your opponents assault phase if vehicle blows up, surely this allows you to charge even if the vehicle stays in tact, right?

dufus0001 wrote:
What about the rest of what I said? If the assault ramp allows you to charge in your opponents assault phase if vehicle blows up, surely this allows you to charge even if the vehicle stays in tact, right?

Only if you can disembark. Which you can only do by destruction in the opponents turn.

The comments about a separate requirement to be able to declare a charge confuse me. On page 20-22 the charge sub-phase is described. Everything in that sub-phase constitutes charging. It doesn't say you have permission to make a charge move it says you have permission to charge, that is all the steps involved in charging. That's what charge means. If you disagree, please let me know where your definition of charge comes from, I might have missed it.

The vehicle being destroyed is not the condition and/or permission that allows you to charge in your opponent's turn. It just lets you assault DURING YOUR TURN if the vehicle should so happen to wreck.

Alright, let's look at it this way. The vehicle is shot at, wrecks, they take a pinning test, fail, and go to ground. According to you, they can still assault because the assault ramp would over rule the go to ground rule.

"After disembarking, 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"

There's your proof. Go ahead and shoot after you disembark on your opponents turn as well. This applies to NON assault vehicles as well!

dufus0001 wrote:
The vehicle being destroyed is not the condition and/or permission that allows you to charge in your opponent's turn. It just lets you assault DURING YOUR TURN if the vehicle should so happen to wreck.

RAI, probably. RAW it does not say during your turn. That is not the wording.You're right the vehicle being destroyed is not, disembarking from it (which happens as a consequence of destruction) is.

dufus0001 wrote:
Alright, let's look at it this way. The vehicle is shot at, wrecks, they take a pinning test, fail, and go to ground. According to you, they can still assault because the assault ramp would over rule the go to ground rule.

Can't overrides may, so if pinned they can't charge.

dufus0001 wrote:
"After disembarking, 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"

This rule specifically calls out their subsequent Shooting phase and their subsequent Assault phase. This makes it refer to their turn only, not the opponents. The assault vehicle rule says the, not their, as such it refers to whatever turn it happens in.

dufus0001 wrote:
There's your proof. Go ahead and shoot after you disembark on your opponents turn as well. This applies to NON assault vehicles as well!

No it doesn't for the reasons I just presented.

I agree with everyone that assaulting on the opponents turn is not RAI, nor is it HIWPI. The main reason I started this thread is because I was seeing alot of people claiming that RAW assault vehicles don't allow you to assault on the turn after they wreck (and this does appear to be the case RAW), however following that argument leads to the ridiculous situation of charging on the opponents turn. So which is it? Do Assault vehicles allow you to charge on the opponents turn but NOT your own following turn (as RAW implies) or do they allow you to charge on your own turn, but NOT your opponents (as I think RAI is, and indeed is HIWPI) or do they not allow you to charge on either or on both (can't see any good argumetns for either of these two positions).

The restrictions are applied to running during their next shooting phase, and charging during their next assault phase. According to RAW, as soon as you disembark, you may shoot counting as have moved. It does not specify which turn they may shoot in, so go ahead an shoot as soon as you disembark.

I am about to start name calling if you do not stop. Why do you argue a point you do not agree with and more specifically, think is wrong? You do not how to do it correctly regardless.

dufus0001 wrote:
I am about to start name calling if you do not stop.

Please don't. It's never warranted.

The OP seems to claim "There is nothing that says you cannot do this" and when I point out a situation where THE EXACT SAME THING can happen, it's wrong. So if my example of poor wording is wrong, but his example of poor wording is correct.

See my thread on 40k Discussion: Donkey Holes


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

I think everyone has established that--at the very least--the rule is not coherent with RAW vs. likely RAI. Unfortunately, given GW's history of poorly articulating rules, this is a common impasse. So--it's worth a conversation with your opponent before the game on how they view the rule--and if they wish to play RAW or RAI on the nature of assault vehicles. Welcome to Dakka dufus0001 as I see you're relatively new! I wouldn't get too worked up over rules discussions--the nature of text minus body language makes posts appear more personal than they really are.

I just think that if you're going to misinterpret rules to your advantage, at least be consistent about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found it!

THE turn, not the PLAYER TURN. The turn and the player turn are two different things. Doesn't give permission for the player turn.

Ah, no , actually they are the same thing> Unless specified otherwise "turn" is synonymous with "player turn"

rigeld2 wrote:

Yes, on a turn you disembark because the vehicle was destroyed you can assault. See how that o ly works with the disembark rules?
See how it never mentions the opposing players turn?

It does mention opposing players turn actually, since the book makes a point of saying that when they use the generic 'Turn' it refers to player turn rather than game turn. The problem is conext (timing) is given in this quote by what caused the wreck. When a vehicle suffers an immobilized or something from moving, then its your turn. If the vehicle is shooting glanced, then its another players turn.

davou wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yes, on a turn you disembark because the vehicle was destroyed you can assault. See how that o ly works with the disembark rules?
See how it never mentions the opposing players turn?

It does mention opposing players turn actually, since the book makes a point of saying that when they use the generic 'Turn' it refers to player turn rather than game turn. The problem is conext (timing) is given in this quote by what caused the wreck. When a vehicle suffers an immobilized or something from moving, then its your turn. If the vehicle is shooting glanced, then its another players turn.

Right - read my quote in the context of the thread.

The context of the quote that keeps getting bandied about is to override the disembark restriction on assaulting. There is no context to assume, interpret, pray, or otherwise think that the rule is referring to general restriction of not being able to assault in your opponents assault phase.

dufus0001 wrote:The restrictions are applied to running during their next shooting phase, and charging during their next assault phase. According to RAW, as soon as you disembark, you may shoot counting as have moved. It does not specify which turn they may shoot in, so go ahead an shoot as soon as you disembark.

Ahh I think I see where we differ on that rule, you see the comma as a list break, as opposed to the comma attendant on "or". This thread isn't about that rule though and I'd rather not derail it, if you would like to follow this line of argument please start a new thread addressing that issue.

dufus0001 wrote:I am about to start name calling if you do not stop.

Threats of bullying are rarely a good debate tactic.

dufus0001 wrote:Why do you argue a point you do not agree with and more specifically, think is wrong?

I am arguing the position of RAW. I have stated what I believe RAI is and HIWPI, which is that units can charge in their own turn after the turn in which they were wrecked.

How would you play it? The same or differently? Do you disallow the charge int eh turn after a vehicle was wrecked? This is all interesting to me, as you are only addressing the RAW part of the question the only responses you have been getting are RAW. If you want to talk about RAI and HYWPI I think you will find we are in more agreement.

As to why I am arguing the RAW position I find it interesting and would like to be able to put forward the best argument I can should I need to. Such an instance would be when an opponent quite rightly points out that by RAW a unit cannot charge the turn after it was wrecked by enemy shooting, if an opponent wants to play that way I will play by the letter of RAW as well and be able to charge in their turn. Not that I often charge as I play a long range shooting army, but you see my point I hope.

dufus0001 wrote:You do not how to do it correctly regardless.

This is simply an attack upon me (unless it is a critique of my debate skills, in which case please elaborate) and as such is not an argument. This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

dufus0001 wrote:The OP seems to claim "There is nothing that says you cannot do this" and when I point out a situation where THE EXACT SAME THING can happen, it's wrong. So if my example of poor wording is wrong, but his example of poor wording is correct.

See my thread on 40k Discussion: Donkey Holes

It is not the same wording, therefore it is not the same question. This is a false equivalence fallacy.

Further my claim is that there is something that specifically says you can and no further restriction. This is different to nothing says you can't.

dufus0001 wrote:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

True. Irrelevant, but true.

dufus0001 wrote:I just think that if you're going to misinterpret rules to your advantage, at least be consistent about it.

This is another ad hominem attacking my motivation rather than my argument. It is also off base, I am not interested in an advantage. I don't even play an assault army.

dufus0001 wrote:
Found it!

THE turn, not the PLAYER TURN. The turn and the player turn are two different things. Doesn't give permission for the player turn.

Unless otherwise stated turn = player turn. Page 9, in bold.

rigeld2 wrote:

davou wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yes, on a turn you disembark because the vehicle was destroyed you can assault. See how that o ly works with the disembark rules?
See how it never mentions the opposing players turn?

It does mention opposing players turn actually, since the book makes a point of saying that when they use the generic 'Turn' it refers to player turn rather than game turn. The problem is conext (timing) is given in this quote by what caused the wreck. When a vehicle suffers an immobilized or something from moving, then its your turn. If the vehicle is shooting glanced, then its another players turn.

Right - read my quote in the context of the thread.

The context of the quote that keeps getting bandied about is to override the disembark restriction on assaulting. There is no context to assume, interpret, pray, or otherwise think that the rule is referring to general restriction of not being able to assault in your opponents assault phase.

Where is this general restriction, page reference please. I can't find it.

Drager wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

davou wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yes, on a turn you disembark because the vehicle was destroyed you can assault. See how that o ly works with the disembark rules?
See how it never mentions the opposing players turn?

It does mention opposing players turn actually, since the book makes a point of saying that when they use the generic 'Turn' it refers to player turn rather than game turn. The problem is conext (timing) is given in this quote by what caused the wreck. When a vehicle suffers an immobilized or something from moving, then its your turn. If the vehicle is shooting glanced, then its another players turn.

Right - read my quote in the context of the thread.

The context of the quote that keeps getting bandied about is to override the disembark restriction on assaulting. There is no context to assume, interpret, pray, or otherwise think that the rule is referring to general restriction of not being able to assault in your opponents assault phase.

Where is this general restriction, page reference please. I can't find it.

It goes hand in hand with the fact that you need permission to do something in your opponents turn. A lack of permission is a restriction.

LOL Really. How is this rule confusing???

Never have you been able iirc to charge in the opponents turn.

Simply put when you disembark from an assault vehicle you may assault, whether it was voluntary, or blown out of it. Obviously goes without saying in YOUR assault phase.

My god people how do some of you make it through the day?

Lungpickle wrote:
LOL Really. How is this rule confusing???

Never have you been able iirc to charge in the opponents turn.

Simply put when you disembark from an assault vehicle you may assault, whether it was voluntary, or blown out of it. Obviously goes without saying in YOUR assault phase.

My god people how do some of you make it through the day?

If you're blown out you do not get to assault in your assault phase.
AV rule allows you to assault during the turn you disembarked - being blown out would be your opponents assault phase.
Normal disembarking rules say that you cannot assault during "their next assault phase". That'd be during your turn - not the same turn AV lifts the restriction.

pAGE 33 REFERS TO ASSAULT VEHICLES AND OPEN TOPPED VEHICLES SINCE THEY ARE TREATED AS ASSAULT VEHICLES. tHE EMBARKING RULES ARE FOR ALL OTHER VEHICLES THAT CARRY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ASSAULT VEHICLES.

SOORY BOUT caps. However there is one rule that does affect the troops disembarking from any vehicle and thats emergency disembarkation.Page 79

No assaulting in your opponents turn thats your turn. From what I understand from my limited play time is that there is no codex nor BRB that allows any unit to assault out of turn.

Disembarkation resrictions apply to all transports ecept assault vehicles because they have their own separate rule on page 33.

Lungpickle wrote:
pAGE 33 REFERS TO ASSAULT VEHICLES AND OPEN TOPPED VEHICLES SINCE THEY ARE TREATED AS ASSAULT VEHICLES. tHE EMBARKING RULES ARE FOR ALL OTHER VEHICLES THAT CARRY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ASSAULT VEHICLES.

SOORY BOUT caps. However there is one rule that does affect the troops disembarking from any vehicle and thats emergency disembarkation.Page 79

No assaulting in your opponents turn thats your turn. From what I understand from my limited play time is that there is no codex nor BRB that allows any unit to assault out of turn.

Disembarkation resrictions apply to all transports ecept assault vehicles because they have their own separate rule on page 33.

Not true whatsoever. The AV rules override specific disembarking rules - they're very clear about what is allowed and what isn't.

Bear in mind you do not lose a hull point for failing a dangerous terrain test, as you never suffera penetrating hit

rigeld2 wrote:

Drager wrote:

Where is this general restriction, page reference please. I can't find it.

It goes hand in hand with the fact that you need permission to do something in your opponents turn. A lack of permission is a restriction.

I think we simply disagree here I see a clearly written permission you do not. I see no additional restriction on that permission, you do. Either way round it's pretty unresolvable, I am confident we are both reading and understanding the rules, just coming to different conclusions on RAW.

Is there anything more to your argument I am missing or anything of mine you need clarified, otherwise I think its time to agree to disagree on this one.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're blown out you do not get to assault in your assault phase.
AV rule allows you to assault during the turn you disembarked - being blown out would be your opponents assault phase.
Normal disembarking rules say that you cannot assault during "their next assault phase". That'd be during your turn - not the same turn AV lifts the restriction.

Absolutely agreed RAW. Doubt that is RAI myself, especially as I see the same reading of RAW givning permission to charge in the opponents turn (I know you don't see that).

rigeld2 wrote:Not true whatsoever. The AV rules override specific disembarking rules - they're very clear about what is allowed and what isn't.

Agreed again.

dufus0001 wrote:But the OP is still a tard

Now this is both attempting to bully me by belittling my intellect (which won't work), and using an inappropriate term to do so.

It's not OK to call people 'tard, implying there is something wrong with having a lower than normal intelligence. That is really devaluing to people who do have a lower than normal intelligence. That's not ok and needlessly cruel. If you want to insult me, fine, I'm a big boy I can take it, but please don't use terms that are likely to have collateral effects on other readers that is unfair and inconsiderate.

If you want more targeted insults how about conceited, block headed, douchebag, prat or fething asswipe. They can be directed my way without offending anyone else.

Whilst your at it, maybe you'd like to answer the HYWPI question and take notes from rigeld, we disagree, but rigeld does not feel the need to call me names because of it.

Drager wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Drager wrote:

Where is this general restriction, page reference please. I can't find it.

It goes hand in hand with the fact that you need permission to do something in your opponents turn. A lack of permission is a restriction.

I think we simply disagree here I see a clearly written permission you do not. I see no additional restriction on that permission, you do. Either way round it's pretty unresolvable, I am confident we are both reading and understanding the rules, just coming to different conclusions on RAW.

Is there anything more to your argument I am missing or anything of mine you need clarified, otherwise I think its time to agree to disagree on this one.

You say that... and then...

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're blown out you do not get to assault in your assault phase.
AV rule allows you to assault during the turn you disembarked - being blown out would be your opponents assault phase.
Normal disembarking rules say that you cannot assault during "their next assault phase". That'd be during your turn - not the same turn AV lifts the restriction.

Absolutely agreed RAW. Doubt that is RAI myself, especially as I see the same reading of RAW givning permission to charge in the opponents turn (I know you don't see that).

rigeld2 wrote:Not true whatsoever. The AV rules override specific disembarking rules - they're very clear about what is allowed and what isn't.

Agreed again.

WAT?!



edit: So you're still thinking that the latter part of the sentence is considered separately from the first part?
Why? What basis do you have for that? It's not adding additional permission, it's clarifying the permission the AV rule is already granting.
You can tell because there's a comma so it's all part of the same sentence.

Ok

Let me see if i got this right now.

1. (non assault)Rhino with 10 guys drives 6", stops. Passengers get out, move up to 6 inches thn stop. Shoot or do nothing in the shooting phase. Assault phase they cant assault.

2. (assault)Land raider goes 6, termies go 6 dont shoot and cant assault?

3. Open topped Ghoat arc goes 6 troops go 6 dont shoot they cant assault also?

Is this what Rigid is saying.

Edited by Manchu.

Lungpickle wrote:
Ok

Let me see if i got this right now.

1. (non assault)Rhino with 10 guys drives 6", stops. Passengers get out, move up to 6 inches thn stop. Shoot or do nothing in the shooting phase. Assault phase they cant assault.

2. (assault)Land raider goes 6, termies go 6 dont shoot and cant assault?

3. Open topped Ghoat arc goes 6 troops go 6 dont shoot they cant assault also?

Is this what Rigid is saying.

Not even close.
1. Is correct.
2. They can assault.
3. They can assault.

The issue comes when your opponent shoots the vehicle out from under you.
1. No change, can't assault.
2. Forced to disembark. AV rule allows them to assault that turn, but you're unable to assault in your opponents assault phase. They are then unable to assault in their next assault phase due to the normal disembark rules.
3. Same as 2.

ill give you a scenario and you tell me how this works out.

an ultramarine tactical squad is 6" from a chaos land raider. the tactical squad shoots its lascannon at the land raider scoring a penetrating hit and wrecking it. the five choas space marines that were inside get out right in front of the ultramarines.

according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

If this is the case i will play my angels and my land raider with death company in it and it will be the most feared thing on the planet. I WILL ABUSE THIS IF THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS. do you really want to deal with that?

i will drop 6 land raiders in my opponents face, each with a squad of 15 death company and a reclusiarch in it .


Automatically Appended Next Post:



I also way to say i'm sorry for my conduct yesterday. i was having an awful day. didn't mean to take it out on the forum.... i do apologize again and it won't happen again.

dufus0001 wrote:
according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

That's absolutely false. That's not what I've been saying. I've said, over and over, that you're not allowed to charge in your opponents turn.
And no - the Tac squad wouldn't be able to charge because they fired a lascannon.

rigeld2 wrote:

dufus0001 wrote:
according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

That's absolutely false. That's not what I've been saying. I've said, over and over, that you're not allowed to charge in your opponents turn.
And no - the Tac squad wouldn't be able to charge because they fired a lascannon.

alright, maybe bad example but i think you know what i'm getting at. rigeld, i agree with you i assure you. i just want to see what the OP has to say about it.

the lascannon shot could have come from a predator. doesn't really matter. if the tac squad is 6" from the land raider when it blows up, according to the way the OP thinks it RAW, they both can overwatch and get the bonuses for charging.

what happens if unit inside has counter attack as well? +2 attacks for charging and being charged at the same time? SWEET!

dufus0001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

dufus0001 wrote:
according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

That's absolutely false. That's not what I've been saying. I've said, over and over, that you're not allowed to charge in your opponents turn.
And no - the Tac squad wouldn't be able to charge because they fired a lascannon.

alright, maybe bad example but i think you know what i'm getting at. rigeld, i agree with you i assure you. i just want to see what the OP has to say about it.

the lascannon shot could have come from a predator. doesn't really matter. if the tac squad is 6" from the land raider when it blows up, according to the way the OP thinks it RAW, they both can overwatch and get the bonuses for charging.

what happens if unit inside has counter attack as well? +2 attacks for charging and being charged at the same time? SWEET!

a) then quote who you're addressing. Replying immediately after I did with no other context makes it seem like you're addressing me.
b) Regardless of your example, the OP has said that is how he reads it RAW and he understands that is not RAI. Giving silly examples and saying "I'll abuse it!" is argumentative and useless. It's not how he'd play.
c) Please offer rules based arguments.

rigeld2 wrote:
a) then quote who you're addressing. Replying immediately after I did with no other context makes it seem like you're addressing me.
b) Regardless of your example, the OP has said that is how he reads it RAW and he understands that is not RAI. Giving silly examples and saying "I'll abuse it!" is argumentative and useless. It's not how he'd play.
c) Please offer rules based arguments.

this is a forum, I was replying in general because I have been part of this conversation. I disagree, giving examples of how it will be abused is how you determine the whole premise of this is false. I have no effing clue what the OP is saying anymore. he's saying he doesn't agree with it yet he keeps arguing the point for arguments sake. I presented a counter argument by asking how other rules worked if the RAW or RAI or what the eff ever i'm lost at that point, would work because they simply don't work if you're allowed to charge on you're opponent's turn.

am i allowed to want to know this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't think you and I should be arguing, we're on the same side of the argument. How about playing along with what I think the OP was bringing up about charging out of an assault vehicle on your opponent's turn? try to think of ways to use it that interact with other rules that bring up questions. use your mistakes against them.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're blown out you do not get to assault in your assault phase.
AV rule allows you to assault during the turn you disembarked - being blown out would be your opponents assault phase.
Normal disembarking rules say that you cannot assault during "their next assault phase". That'd be during your turn - not the same turn AV lifts the restriction.

Absolutely agreed RAW. Doubt that is RAI myself, especially as I see the same reading of RAW givning permission to charge in the opponents turn (I know you don't see that).

rigeld2 wrote:Not true whatsoever. The AV rules override specific disembarking rules - they're very clear about what is allowed and what isn't.

Agreed again.

WAT?!

I agree the AV rules over ride certain bits of the disembarking rules and that RAW you can't charge the turn after you are wrecked. The fact that we parse the overriding sentence differently doesn't mean we have to disagree there.

rigeld2 wrote:
edit: So you're still thinking that the latter part of the sentence is considered separately from the first part?
Why? What basis do you have for that? It's not adding additional permission, it's clarifying the permission the AV rule is already granting.
You can tell because there's a comma so it's all part of the same sentence.

No, I think it is considered as a whole sentence, thus giving you permission to charge in your opponents turn. I can't see how we get to your interpretation without considering them separately, obviously you can see how you get there. This is where we fundamentally disagree.

dufus0001 wrote:ill give you a scenario and you tell me how this works out.

an ultramarine tactical squad is 6" from a chaos land raider. the tactical squad shoots its lascannon at the land raider scoring a penetrating hit and wrecking it. the five choas space marines that were inside get out right in front of the ultramarines.

according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

If this is the case i will play my angels and my land raider with death company in it and it will be the most feared thing on the planet. I WILL ABUSE THIS IF THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS. do you really want to deal with that?

i will drop 6 land raiders in my opponents face, each with a squad of 15 death company and a reclusiarch in it .

Yep that appears to be RAW. It is also RAW that your DC can't charge in your own following turn, do you agree with that part of the RAW taken separately (as rigeld does)?

dufus0001 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

I also way to say i'm sorry for my conduct yesterday. i was having an awful day. didn't mean to take it out on the forum.... i do apologize again and it won't happen again.

Apology accepted, thankyou.

dufus0001 wrote:
this is a forum, I was replying in general because I have been part of this conversation. I disagree, giving examples of how it will be abused is how you determine the whole premise of this is false.

This is not how you determine if something is false or true. It is how you determine if it is good or bad, they are different.

dufus0001 wrote:I have no effing clue what the OP is saying anymore. he's saying he doesn't agree with it yet he keeps arguing the point for arguments sake. I presented a counter argument by asking how other rules worked if the RAW or RAI or what the eff ever i'm lost at that point, would work because they simply don't work if you're allowed to charge on you're opponent's turn.

am i allowed to want to know this?

Charges are declared one at a time, the player whose turn it is gets to decide which order they are resolved in. Therefore the tac squad would get to declare its charge, the DC overwatch. If the DC are not in combat and the Tac squad is still alive then they can charge and Tac can overwatch, simple. Even if it wasn't is irrelevant to RAW.

Again I ask, in your opinion would the DC be able to charge on your turn after the LR gets wrecked by your opponent?

The crux of this is that I read taht you can assault on your opponents turn, but NOT on your own following. I think this is silly. I therefore play that you can charge in your own next assault phase as that seems both fair and not mental. This is a house rule though, clearly, and rigeld (among others) does not see it the same way.

Drager wrote:
Charges are declared one at a time, the player whose turn it is gets to decide which order they are resolved in. Therefore the tac squad would get to declare its charge, the DC overwatch. If the DC are not in combat and the Tac squad is still alive then they can charge and Tac can overwatch, simple. Even if it wasn't is irrelevant to RAW.

Please specify this in the BRB. As far as I can see there are nothing about choosing who declares the charge first in the assault phase. I believe you are assuming this.

Drager wrote:
Again I ask, in your opinion would the DC be able to charge on your turn after the LR gets wrecked by your opponent?

The crux of this is that I read taht you can assault on your opponents turn, but NOT on your own following. I think this is silly. I therefore play that you can charge in your own next assault phase as that seems both fair and not mental. This is a house rule though, clearly, and rigeld (among others does not see it the same way

Yes, you can assault on your turn. You started the turn outside the vehicle therefore you follow normal moving and assaulting rules. If you want to read it like that, disembarking restrictions apply to ALL subsequent turns.

Drager 471991 4710903 nul wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
edit: So you're still thinking that the latter part of the sentence is considered separately from the first part?
Why? What basis do you have for that? It's not adding additional permission, it's clarifying the permission the AV rule is already granting.
You can tell because there's a comma so it's all part of the same sentence.

No, I think it is considered as a whole sentence, thus giving you permission to charge in your opponents turn. I can't see how we get to your interpretation without considering them separately, obviously you can see how you get there. This is where we fundamentally disagree.

It's considered as a whole sentence even though it's a comma separated clause?
I guess I'm not understanding you. Looking at the second half of the sentence as applying to anything other than overriding the disembark rules doesn't make sense.

It's not clear at all really... either side can be proven with RAW. GW needs to come out with a FAQ. Until then I'm playing it no assaulting in opponent's assault phase.

Purely based on that being silly to me.

The rule clearly does not allow assaulting during the opponents phase even RAW.

Warptide wrote:
It's not clear at all really... either side can be proven with RAW. GW needs to come out with a FAQ. Until then I'm playing it no assaulting in opponent's assault phase.

Purely based on that being silly to me.

You cannot prove that you have permission to assault in your opponents assault phase.
You can prove that you have permission to assault after disembarking, even in your opponents assault phase but that's a different thing.

rigeld2 wrote:

WAT?!

edit: So you're still thinking that the latter part of the sentence is considered separately from the first part?
Why? What basis do you have for that? It's not adding additional permission, it's clarifying the permission the AV rule is already granting.
You can tell because there's a comma so it's all part of the same sentence.

I can answer my basis for it.

Basis 1. Unlike in 5th ed, passengers now disembark under all circumstances, no longer neccessary to clarify permission. (Even then the clarification would have been wrong, since without the entry on pg. 426, passengers would not disembark on an explodes result). This is why the second part of the rule is no longer needed.

Basis 2. Under the player turn sequence, every phase is listed as "your models move" "your models shoot." However, at assaults it says "models..." as mentions it's specifically different since both sides now participate in assaults.

Basis 3. Charge is not an action, but now a sub-phase of assaults. Units that can charge, see the charge sub phase, where step 1 is to declare the charge. Therefore, a unit that is granted charge, is now granted the ability to declare a charge.

Basis 4. AV rule is a rule for giving units enbarked in vehicles permission to charge after disembarking. Not permission to disembark, permission to assault after disembarking from the vehicle, and lays out the circumstances when they can. those circumstances being when they disembark from the vehicle, even on a turn the vehicle explodes. Summary: AV tells units when they may charge.

now that you are allowed to charge after you get out of the vehicle, And player turn sequence no longer specifies which side specifically operates an assault in a player turn, a charging model may go to the charge sub-phase and declare a charge under the charge sup-phase steps.

Paitryn wrote:
Basis 1. Unlike in 5th ed, passengers now disembark under all circumstances, no longer neccessary to clarify permission. (Even then the clarification would have been wrong, since without the entry on pg. 426, passengers would not disembark on an explodes result). This is why the second part of the rule is no longer needed.

"second part" being the "even on the turn the vehicle was destroyed"?
That part is there so that you're aware that even with the vehicle destroyed there's a lasting effect allowing the assault. That wasn't the case in 5th - if you disembarked and your vehicle was destroyed (for example, by a scattered blast marker) you could not benefit from the Assault Vehicle rules, meaning you could not assault (assuming the vehicle moved).

Basis 2. Under the player turn sequence, every phase is listed as "your models move" "your models shoot." However, at assaults it says "models..." as mentions it's specifically different since both sides now participate in assaults.

Page 20. "It's time for your warriors" "First,pick one of your units" "Once this has been done, you can either choose to declare a charge with another unit, or proceed to the Fight sub-phase."

Basis 3. Charge is not an action, but now a sub-phase of assaults. Units that can charge, see the charge sub phase, where step 1 is to declare the charge. Therefore, a unit that is granted charge, is now granted the ability to declare a charge.

You're misrepresenting step 1. The player whose turn it is picks a unit and declares a charge. Once he's done resolving charges he can decide to move to the Fight sub-phase. Where is the permission for the player who is not in control of the turn to declare a charge? Cite the rule please.

Basis 4. AV rule is a rule for giving units enbarked in vehicles permission to charge after disembarking. Not permission to disembark, permission to assault after disembarking from the vehicle, and lays out the circumstances when they can. those circumstances being when they disembark from the vehicle, even on a turn the vehicle explodes. Summary: AV tells units when they may charge.

AV overrides the basic disembark restriction. We know that because it says "Passengers disembarking from ..."

now that you are allowed to charge after you get out of the vehicle,

Agreed.

And player turn sequence no longer specifies which side specifically operates an assault in a player turn,

False, as shown above.

a charging model may go to the charge sub-phase and declare a charge under the charge sup-phase steps.

During the owning player's turn, yes. Not during the opponents turn as the opponent has no permission to ever declare a charge during your phase.

Your basis 2 and 3 are false, rendering your entire conclusion unsupported by rules.

Drager wrote:

dufus0001 wrote:ill give you a scenario and you tell me how this works out.

an ultramarine tactical squad is 6" from a chaos land raider. the tactical squad shoots its lascannon at the land raider scoring a penetrating hit and wrecking it. the five choas space marines that were inside get out right in front of the ultramarines.

according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

If this is the case i will play my angels and my land raider with death company in it and it will be the most feared thing on the planet. I WILL ABUSE THIS IF THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS. do you really want to deal with that?

i will drop 6 land raiders in my opponents face, each with a squad of 15 death company and a reclusiarch in it .

Yep that appears to be RAW. It is also RAW that your DC can't charge in your own following turn, do you agree with that part of the RAW taken separately?

Are you crazy? Are you actually advocating that the game should be played this way? That both units should be allowed to charge each other during the same player turn? Who moves first, the active player or the passive player?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Again I ask, in your opinion would the DC be able to charge on your turn after the LR gets wrecked by your opponent?

The crux of this is that I read taht you can assault on your opponents turn, but NOT on your own following. I think this is silly. I therefore play that you can charge in your own next assault phase as that seems both fair and not mental. This is a house rule though, clearly, and rigeld (among others) does not see it the same way.

Ok...I think I get it now. You're making this argument with the express intention to show that RAW is broken because you think that the passengers of the destroyed assault vehicle should be allowed to assault on their next turn - even though strict RAW seems to say they can't. Am I correct in this? You're playing Devil's Advocate?

Is there anyone on this forum who DOESN'T think this should be FAQ'd? Personally, I think the way it should be played is that passengers from wrecked assault vehicle should be allowed to assault in their own subsequent assault phase. Unfortunately, RAW has turned it into a fustercluck.

 Grugknuckle wrote:


Ok...I think I get it now. You're making this argument with the express intention to show that RAW is broken because you think that the passengers of the destroyed assault vehicle should be allowed to assault on their next turn - even though strict RAW seems to say they can't. Am I correct in this? You're playing Devil's Advocate?

That's my take on the whole thread. Essentially, strict RAW would break the game and/or be stupid, thus, needs a FAQ to clear matters up. I would like to see a poll on how others play this. We've house ruled on it as well to allow assault vehicles' passengers to assault the following turn, not the turn they're forcefully removed from their ride.

ThePhish wrote:
That's my take on the whole thread. Essentially, strict RAW would break the game and/or be stupid, thus, needs a FAQ to clear matters up.

Except not one single person has been able to show that "strict RAW" actually breaks the game.
Every attempt has failed because there's no permission to assault in your opponents turn in the first place, disembarking or not.

rigeld2 wrote:

Except not one single person has been able to show that "strict RAW" actually breaks the game.
Every attempt has failed because there's no permission to assault in your opponents turn in the first place, disembarking or not.

Well I think what he means by "broken game" depends on whose side of RAW you take.

If we side with rigeld2 , then the game still plays fine except for the bummer that being an assault vehicle doesn't let your passengers assault on your turn if the vehicle dies in your opponents turn. At least, I think that's a bummer. But anyway, this doesn't break the game at all, it just makes the assault vehicle rule not as good.

On the other hand, Drager - who I think is playing the Devil's Advocate : he doesn't really think the game should be played this way, but please correct me if I'm mistaken - Drager is trying to make an RAW argument that if your assault vehicle gets destroyed during your opponents shooting phase, then your passengers may assault during your opponents assault phase. This is imbecility. The rules do not support, have never supported, and likely will never support the passive player initiating a charge in his opponents turn. But just for the sake of argument, lets suppose they did. Consider how many more rules would become "broken" as a consequence. You would pretty much have to re-write the entire section on assaults. And I think THAT is what Phish means by "breaks the game".

 Grugknuckle wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Except not one single person has been able to show that "strict RAW" actually breaks the game.
Every attempt has failed because there's no permission to assault in your opponents turn in the first place, disembarking or not.

Well I think what he means by "broken game" depends on whose side of RAW you take.

If we side with rigeld2 , then the game still plays fine except for the bummer that being an assault vehicle doesn't let your passengers assault on your turn if the vehicle dies in your opponents turn. At least, I think that's a bummer. But anyway, this doesn't break the game at all, it just makes the assault vehicle rule not as good.

On the other hand, Drager - who I think is playing the Devil's Advocate : he doesn't really think the game should be played this way, but please correct me if I'm mistaken - Drager is trying to make an RAW argument that if your assault vehicle gets destroyed during your opponents shooting phase, then your passengers may assault during your opponents assault phase. This is imbecility. The rules do not support, have never supported, and likely will never support the passive player initiating a charge in his opponents turn. But just for the sake of argument, lets suppose they did. Consider how many more rules would become "broken" as a consequence. You would pretty much have to re-write the entire section on assaults. And I think THAT is what Phish means by "breaks the game".

Nice summary. Yes.

@rigeld2 I'm also of the opinion that, RAW, the Assault vehicle "special" rule allows assaulting in the opponents turn if the passengers disembark in my opponents turn.

The rule :
Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so, even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed

"Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge" - To me, this grants permission to charge.
"on the turn they do so" - turn, as described earlier in the book defines a player turn. So any player turn since it does not specify the player who's turn it is, or my subsequent turn. No specificity.
", even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed" - "Even" Reemphasizes that the rule "Even" works on the "player turn" that the vehicle was destroyed. Again, nothing specifying who's player turn it's destroyed on, therefore means both/either player's turn.

The rule itself is the permission you're looking for. The assault vehicle special rule grants permissions above and beyond the standard vehicle rules. There is nothing that prevents it, b/c the special rule trumps the standard rules, otherwise, there would be no point to having a special rule. This is how I understand it.

As others have mentioned, I don't play it this way, b/c I think in it's current state, with no FAQ, and in conjunction with the other badly written 'wrecked', 'explodes', 'disembark' rules, it breaks the game, or at least the flow of the game. Granted, I'm loath to change the method I've been using for the last few years in 5th, and I'm stuck in a rut of trying to play the same way that I did in 5th in some aspects, but it's 6th edition now. Things have changed

As for the question earlier about 2 units, capable of assaulting each other due to the assault vehicle rule. The player who's turn it is chooses the order that the assaults are performed. It might benefit the player who's turn it is to make the opponent perform his charge first and you be able to overwatch in your own assault phase and try to win out in your opponents phase. If in front of 2 squads, you could make them charge, overwatch with one squad and then charge your 2nd squad in. You would be trading their overwatch for your +1 attack for the assault, but depending on the units involved, it might be worth it.

ThePhish wrote:
"Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge" - To me, this grants permission to charge.

Grants permission to charge overriding the normal disembarking restriction.

"on the turn they do so" - turn, as described earlier in the book defines a player turn. So any player turn since it does not specify the player who's turn it is, or my subsequent turn. No specificity.
", even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed" - "Even" Reemphasizes that the rule "Even" works on the "player turn" that the vehicle was destroyed.

100% correct. When you disembark, you can assault on that turn despite the fact that you just disembarked. You may do this even if the vehicle is destroyed - without that permission the ability to assault would disappear if the vehicle is destroyed.

The rule itself is the permission you're looking for. The assault vehicle special rule grants permissions above and beyond the standard vehicle rules. There is nothing that prevents it, b/c the special rule trumps the standard rules, otherwise, there would be no point to having a special rule. This is how I understand it.

Yes, the special rule trumps the standard rule. The standard rule is that if you disembark you may not assault. AV trumps that.

There's nothing written in AV given you permission to act during your opponents turn. You are never given permission to declare an assault during your opponents turn.
You're allowed to declare an assault despite having disembarked. Now - find permission to declare an assault when it's not your turn. Cite a rule please. I'll wait.

rigeld2 wrote:

"on the turn they do so" - turn, as described earlier in the book defines a player turn. So any player turn since it does not specify the player who's turn it is, or my subsequent turn. No specificity.
", even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed" - "Even" Reemphasizes that the rule "Even" works on the "player turn" that the vehicle was destroyed.

100% correct. When you disembark, you can assault on that turn despite the fact that you just disembarked. You may do this even if the vehicle is destroyed - without that permission the ability to assault would disappear if the vehicle is destroyed.

Exactly. "the turn" it's destroyed. The turn can be either the controlling player, or the opponent's turn. The rule does not specify. We are given specific instruction on the use of the word "turn" on pg.9. Turn = player turn. This is the sticking point that the entire debate is revolving around.

There's nothing written in AV given you permission to act during your opponents turn. You are never given permission to declare an assault during your opponents turn.
You're allowed to declare an assault despite having disembarked. Now - find permission to declare an assault when it's not your turn. Cite a rule please. I'll wait.

I'm going to use your exact words to answer this so you see where I and the op are coming from. We're saying the exact same things over and over and seeing it differently.
"When you disembark, you can assault on that turn despite the fact that you just disembarked. You may do this even if the vehicle is destroyed."
100% correct, by raw. Regardless of which player's turn it is b/c the AV rule says that they may charge on the "turn = player turn" it's destroyed. The entire argument is on when, and we're told "turn". turn = player turn. That simple.

This is why I think it needs FAQ'd.

As for the question earlier about 2 units, capable of assaulting each other due to the assault vehicle rule. The player who's turn it is chooses the order that the assaults are performed.

You could also argue that not only does the active player decide the order in which units assault, but that he is the one who decides which units get to charge at all. Someone pointed out that in the assault rules, when deciding which units will charge you select "models" and not "your models". Does that mean I can select my opponents models and force them to charge?

Anyway...I think this discussion is completely academic because none of us actually think the game can be played this way without many many more rules clarifications. Obviously the AV rule was just poorly worded - not an uncommon occurrence for rules written by GW. I think we should just stop trying to determine if RAW allows us to charge in our opponents assault phase or not. In this special case, it doesn't matter what RAW says. No one should play it that way.

And now that I've actually said, "it doesn't matter what RAW is", you can fire up your bolt guns and cleanse me.

ThePhish wrote:
I'm going to use your exact words to answer this so you see where I and the op are coming from. We're saying the exact same things over and over and seeing it differently.
"When you disembark, you can assault on that turn despite the fact that you just disembarked. You may do this even if the vehicle is destroyed."
100% correct, by raw. Regardless of which player's turn it is b/c the AV rule says that they may charge on the "turn = player turn" it's destroyed. The entire argument is on when, and we're told "turn". turn = player turn. That simple.

This is why I think it needs FAQ'd.

You're quoting the rule wrong.

Page 33 BRB wrote: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.

The entire rule is one sentence, so the context of the rule is only ever addressing the restriction on assault from disembarking.
Trying to apply any permission outside that context is just wrong. Yes, if the rule was two separate sentence you might have an argument - as it is you must ignore the context of the rule and ignore the fact that you are never given permission to declare an assault during your opponents turn to get your mistaken view.

Even if you were right and that rule allowed it - read the assault phase rules. The controlling player decides when to move on from declaring and resolving assault moves to the Fight sub-phase. Which means the controlling player would have to nominate your unit to declare an assault move as you have no permission to do so.

Read the rules in context and you'll understand them much better. You're literally ignoring rules to try and make one thing break the game that really doesn't.

rigeld2 wrote:

Which means the controlling player would have to nominate your unit to declare an assault move as you have no permission to do so.

Just for giggles, let's pretend that we allowed this. Then we would be opening up a whole can of worms where I could activate ANY of my opponents units which were able to charge and force them to charge me during my assault phase. Yes please. Let's have your guardsmen which are 24" away from my 5 Heavy Bolters declare a charge and I'll overwatch and wreck them.

Read the rules in context and you'll understand them much better. You're literally ignoring rules to try and make one thing break the game that really doesn't.

Here's the thing - The rules should not be written so poorly that we even have to argue about this. The fact that they are so badly worded and so consistently is a source of unending frustration for me.

rigeld2 wrote:

ThePhish wrote:
I'm going to use your exact words to answer this so you see where I and the op are coming from. We're saying the exact same things over and over and seeing it differently.
"When you disembark, you can assault on that turn despite the fact that you just disembarked. You may do this even if the vehicle is destroyed."
100% correct, by raw. Regardless of which player's turn it is b/c the AV rule says that they may charge on the "turn = player turn" it's destroyed. The entire argument is on when, and we're told "turn". turn = player turn. That simple.

This is why I think it needs FAQ'd.

You're quoting the rule wrong.

Actually...I was quoting you...

rigeld2 wrote:
When you disembark, you can assault on that turn despite the fact that you just disembarked. You may do this even if the vehicle is destroyed

Your interpretation of the rule, just so happened to be my exact interpretation of the rule. The stickler still being the word "turn" and our disagreement there.

This is why I'm saying we need an FAQ, why I don't play it this way, and why we have house rules. The game isn't designed to handle it, thus breaks.

ThePhish wrote:
Actually...I was quoting you...

Regardless, you're refusing to answer the points I brought up. Please do.

This is why I'm saying we need an FAQ, why I don't play it this way, and why we have house rules. The game isn't designed to handle it, thus breaks.

You're wrong. Unless you can address the points I raised, there's no way for your interpretation to possibly be correct.
The game hasn't broken in this manner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
Here's the thing - The rules should not be written so poorly that we even have to argue about this. The fact that they are so badly worded and so consistently is a source of unending frustration for me.

They're only poorly worded if you purposely ignore context and other indications of how the rule works.
Yes, GW rights poor rules.
The only way to pretend this one is poor is to think "Well... GW normally writes unclear things, so I'll take this word out of context and pretend that this rule is unclear as well!"

The points you've raised, aside from ignoring the permission given by the assault vehicle special rule, are probably the way the rule is intended to be played.

GW ,however, gave the word "turn" significance by writing rules for how it is supposed to be interpreted. "Turn" has a rule associated with it that specifies a time within the game that certain events are supposed to happen. It cannot be ignored, regardless of RAI. The 'context' of the word is straight out of the rule book.

I agree completely that it should not be this way, but it is, until the error, if it is one, is rectified with an FAQ.

ThePhish wrote:
The points you've raised, aside from ignoring the permission given by the assault vehicle special rule, are probably the way the rule is intended to be played.

GW ,however, gave the word "turn" significance by writing rules for how it is supposed to be interpreted. "Turn" has a rule associated with it that specifies a time within the game that certain events are supposed to happen. It cannot be ignored, regardless of RAI.

I agree completely that it should not be this way, but it is, until the error, if it is one, is rectified with an FAQ.

So you're ignoring the fact that RAW you have no permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn to claim that the game is broken?

I'm not ignoring that phrase. I've acknowledged it, unlike your stance that literally requires ignoring rules. I've shown you where. Are you still going to decline to show permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn? Without such permission your interpretation cannot be the RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're ignoring the fact that RAW you have no permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn to claim that the game is broken?

I'm not ignoring that phrase. I've acknowledged it, unlike your stance that literally requires ignoring rules. I've shown you where. Are you still going to decline to show permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn? Without such permission your interpretation cannot be the RAW.

As I've already stated, the rule gives permission.

Beyond permission... there are no rules to cover it, which is where it's broken. Which is where an FAQ comes in and changes the wording to say 'in the units following turn'. It fixes the AV rule, and it fixes the crap where AV doesn't work for a wrecked or explodes result for the following turn.

ThePhish wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're ignoring the fact that RAW you have no permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn to claim that the game is broken?

I'm not ignoring that phrase. I've acknowledged it, unlike your stance that literally requires ignoring rules. I've shown you where. Are you still going to decline to show permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn? Without such permission your interpretation cannot be the RAW.

As I've already stated, the rule gives permission.

No, they don't. As I pointed out - even if you have permission to make an assault in your opponents phase, the assault phase rules require that it be the owning player that declares assaults. Find the permission to avoid that rule. And then there's the rule that the current player is the one who decides when to move on to the Fight sub-phase. Find the permission to avoid that rule.

I've asked for that before. You've failed to provide it before. Your scenario is literally impossible in the rules as written until you find that permission.

The assault vehicle rules are not broken.

Beyond permission... there are no rules to cover it, which is where it's broken. Which is where an FAQ comes in and changes the wording to say 'in the units following turn'. It fixes the AV rule, and it fixes the crap where AV doesn't work for a wrecked or explodes result for the following turn.

The rule works fine. You're easter egging because you want it to be better than it is.

ThePhish wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're ignoring the fact that RAW you have no permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn to claim that the game is broken?

I'm not ignoring that phrase. I've acknowledged it, unlike your stance that literally requires ignoring rules. I've shown you where. Are you still going to decline to show permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn? Without such permission your interpretation cannot be the RAW.

As I've already stated, the rule gives permission.

Beyond permission... there are no rules to cover it, which is where it's broken. Which is where an FAQ comes in and changes the wording to say 'in the units following turn'. It fixes the AV rule, and it fixes the crap where AV doesn't work for a wrecked or explodes result for the following turn.

If something "gives permission" to do something against the rules but "doesnt give rules to cover it." Then it probably did not give permission to do something against the rules. Focusing on "turn" completely as a basis for an argument (or any single word) usually shows your interpreting it without context. GW often uses plain speech rather than legal in writing these rules. "Turn" in this case is simply used to describe the event of being destroyed.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they don't. As I pointed out - even if you have permission to make an assault in your opponents phase, the assault phase rules require that it be the owning player that declares assaults. Find the permission to avoid that rule. And then there's the rule that the current player is the one who decides when to move on to the Fight sub-phase. Find the permission to avoid that rule.

Can't avoid those rules. It makes the permissions given to assault pointless. Doesn't change that you have permission.

The assault vehicle rules are not broken.

Broken may not be the best choice of words. More like a dead end. There cannot be an outcome with no rules to support it. It's not going to stop some people from trying to make it happen though which is another reason I would like to see an faq. Close loop holes and end discussion.

The rule works fine. You're easter egging because you want it to be better than it is.

Nah, I want the rule to not be debatable. I don't want sloppy rules that lead to open ended bickering b/c of poor wording, or lazy writing. I don't want rules that are "intended" for one thing but aren't written well enough to accomplish what it was intended for. I think the part about "even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed" is intended to allow assaulting after getting shot down, but doesn't accomplish that. Then again, it could simply mean that you're still allowed to assault after failing a dangerous terrain check and immobilising it. We won't know for sure without an FAQ.

As has been established, we both play it the same way, so the argument is moot.

ThePhish wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they don't. As I pointed out - even if you have permission to make an assault in your opponents phase, the assault phase rules require that it be the owning player that declares assaults. Find the permission to avoid that rule. And then there's the rule that the current player is the one who decides when to move on to the Fight sub-phase. Find the permission to avoid that rule.

Can't avoid those rules. It makes the permissions given to assault pointless. Doesn't change that you have permission.

So... You're arguing that you have permission to do something but don't have permission to do it?
That's not a very useful thing to mention, care about, or demand an FAQ for. I don't see an issue here.

The assault vehicle rules are not broken.

Broken may not be the best choice of words. More like a dead end. There cannot be an outcome with no rules to support it. It's not going to stop some people from trying to make it happen though which is another reason I would like to see an faq. Close loop holes and end discussion.

There are rules to support it. Why do you say there aren't? You're never granted permission to declare an assault in your opponents turn. Therefore it doesn't matter how you try and twist rules to say you can, without that permission it's a dead end.

Then again, it could simply mean that you're still allowed to assault after failing a dangerous terrain check and immobilising it. We won't know for sure without an FAQ.

So.., you're not Easter egging, you just want the rule to do more than it currently does. Yeah. Okay.
You're the one manipulating the wording and ignoring context to try and break the assault phase in an attempt to say "See? Conflict! We need a FAQ!". There's no actual rules that support your interpretation, and you've admitted that even if the rules did, it'd be a useless interpretation.
Praying for clear cut rules is akin to planning on winning the lottery - I wouldn't hold your breath.

As has been established, we both play it the same way, so the argument is moot.

Not really - you keep insisting the rules are vague and unclear and require an FAQ because if you take a word out of context the assault phase doesn't break. And haven't shown rules support. And have admitted the rules don't really support your viewpoint.

Also - where are people getting this idea that you lose a HP when you fail a dangerous terrain test?

ThePhish wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they don't. As I pointed out - even if you have permission to make an assault in your opponents phase, the assault phase rules require that it be the owning player that declares assaults. Find the permission to avoid that rule. And then there's the rule that the current player is the one who decides when to move on to the Fight sub-phase. Find the permission to avoid that rule.

Can't avoid those rules. It makes the permissions given to assault pointless. Doesn't change that you have permission.

The assault vehicle rules are not broken.

Broken may not be the best choice of words. More like a dead end. There cannot be an outcome with no rules to support it. It's not going to stop some people from trying to make it happen though which is another reason I would like to see an faq. Close loop holes and end discussion.

The rule works fine. You're easter egging because you want it to be better than it is.

Nah, I want the rule to not be debatable. I don't want sloppy rules that lead to open ended bickering b/c of poor wording, or lazy writing. I don't want rules that are "intended" for one thing but aren't written well enough to accomplish what it was intended for. I think the part about "even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed" is intended to allow assaulting after getting shot down, but doesn't accomplish that. Then again, it could simply mean that you're still allowed to assault after failing a dangerous terrain check and immobilising it. We won't know for sure without an FAQ.

As has been established, we both play it the same way, so the argument is moot.

Alright, you have permission, then please explain citing the BRB for reference, as to how the mechanic of declaring a charge in your opponent's turn works.

I agree with rigeld2. An FAQ will not clear up this rule, just the mindset of people who think it works that way.If there were ANY notion, ANY where else, then I could see how this could be argued. This is the ONLY slight reference to charging in your opponent's turn that I can see.

The wording in question is in case a vehicle with an assault ramp were to ram another and wreck. The unit may then assault whereas it would have not been able to normally.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Also - where are people getting this idea that you lose a HP when you fail a dangerous terrain test?

From the FAQ.

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle

FAQ v1 brb. So this should answer your question on assault vehicles in the following turn. The other question many are debating about assaulting in the opponents turn is NULL and Void since you cannot assault in your opponents turn. SO I dont want to read they cannot assault the following turn anymore from an assault vehicle..

Yes. This thread is all FAQ'd up now.