Switch Theme:

Disembarking from a deepstriking vehicle into terrain = dangerous terrain test?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





The House that Peterbilt

I didn't see that this had been discussed before. I know drop pods have to take dangerous terrain tests when DSing into terrain but the disembarking unit? Seems that way. Relevant rule that I know of.

"Models arriving via deep strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain."

A small segway, there's no time frame set on this, so RAW you could argue it lasts the rest of the game.

Thoughts, relevant points, witty banter?

snoogums: "Just because something is not relavant doesn't mean it goes away completely."

Iorek: "Snoogums, you're right. Your arguments are irrelevant, and they sure as heck aren't going away." 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw





St. Louis, MO

The vehicle is "deep striking" the unit is "disembarking."
The separation is important.


There is no test for simply disembarking into terrain.

As for time frame... there is, indeed, a time frame. The rule is for units deep striking into terrain. After they initially arrive, they are no longer deep striking. They are, simply, moving. Thus, no tests.


Eric

Black Fiend wrote: Okay all the ChapterHouse Nazis to the right!! All the GW apologists to the far left. LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE !!!
The Green Git wrote: I'd like to cross section them and see if they have TFG rings, but that's probably illegal.
Polonius wrote: You have to love when the most clearly biased person in the room is claiming to be objective.
Greebynog wrote:Us brits have a sense of fair play and propriety that you colonial savages can only dream of.
Stelek wrote: I know you're afraid. I want you to be. Because you should be. I've got the humiliation wagon all set up for you to take a ride back to suck city.
Quote: LunaHound--- Why do people hate unpainted models? I mean is it lacking the realism to what we fantasize the plastic soldier men to be?
I just can't stand it when people have fun the wrong way. - Chongara
I do believe that the GW "moneysheep" is a dying breed, despite their bleats to the contrary. - AesSedai
You are a thief and a predator of the wargaming community, and i'll be damned if anyone says differently ever again on my watch in these forums. -MajorTom11 
   
Made in us
Dominar






Don't the Drop Pod Assault rules state that the transported models count as deep striking as well? Don't have my codex on me but am 80% sure that caveat is included.
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





The House that Peterbilt

I can agree with that and wouldn't argue when actually playing a game but playing devil's advocate (as I have had someone bring this up during a game).

It seems clear the unit still arrived via deepstrike, they are still bound by the rules of arriving that way (counted as having moved, not being able to assault, etc)

It also doesn't say how or when difficult counts as dangerous (eg nothing saying it is only when the model is deployed), it just says it does if they are arriving via deep strike.

snoogums: "Just because something is not relavant doesn't mean it goes away completely."

Iorek: "Snoogums, you're right. Your arguments are irrelevant, and they sure as heck aren't going away." 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: