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.

Question 1:
Can units in a open-topped vehicle assault FROM the vehicle? Or do they have to disembark in movement phase in order to assault?

Question 2:
Can an immobilized trukk still "Kareen!"?

Question 3:
When ramming an open-topped vehicle, does the +1 modifier to the damage table still apply?


Have a nice day!

1) you must have disembarked in the movement phase to assault, as you are not given permission to disembark in the assault phase

2) No, not than I'm aware of

3) Yes - why wouldnt it?

1: My opinion as well. Disembarkment is made in the MP.

2: We couldn't find it anywhere in the rules. But to me, an immobilized vehicle, IS immobilized, and hence doesn't move.

3: I believe it should, since it's not mentioned in the rules that it shouldn't, but my opponent was a bit upset about this

1. Indeed, and as this is a game of you CAN not you CANT, unless you have a rule saying you can disembark in the assault phase you cannot.
This is general as well, not relating to the open topped special case.

2. Immobilised vehicles CANNOT move, which overrides the Kareen result

3. Well given it is +1 on the Damage chart and the chart deosnt care HOW you got roll on the chart in the first pace, I'd say tough to your opponent.

nosferatu1001 has everything spot on.

That gives from me, since all 3 answers is to my satisfaction

Good luck with your games

Alienfood wrote:Question 1:
Can units in a open-topped vehicle assault FROM the vehicle? Or do they have to disembark in movement phase in order to assault

Have a nice day!

Well Orks can assault from a open-topped vehicle to another vehicle within 2inches if they purchased the boarding plank upgrade...

WAAAGH!!!BLITZROG wrote:

Alienfood wrote:Question 1:
Can units in a open-topped vehicle assault FROM the vehicle? Or do they have to disembark in movement phase in order to assault

Have a nice day!

Well Orks can assault from a open-topped vehicle to another vehicle within 2inches if they purchased the boarding plank upgrade...

They can do that from an enclosed vehicle as well - what's your point?

I think the point that is trying to made is that ,in point of fact, yes AN ork can assult another vehicle from a vehicle with a boarding plank, without disembarking.

It isntg an assault, it counts as assaulting and can make CC attacks.

Scott-S6 wrote:

WAAAGH!!!BLITZROG wrote:

Alienfood wrote:Question 1:
Can units in a open-topped vehicle assault FROM the vehicle? Or do they have to disembark in movement phase in order to assault

Have a nice day!

Well Orks can assault from a open-topped vehicle to another vehicle within 2inches if they purchased the boarding plank upgrade...

They can do that from an enclosed vehicle as well - what's your point?

Are you serious? Your snide comment doesn't really deserve a response but here it goes...
Obviously your oblivious to the OP question about if "Can units in a open-topped vehicle assault FROM the vehicle? Or do they have to disembark in movement phase in order to assault?," and you just wanted to drop your two-cents...
Let's use common sense and reason. In this scenario, let us assume the OP didn't know that his opponent had the boarding plank upgrade and his opponent assaulted from it. Which would raise such a question about being able to assault from a open-topped vehicle if one wasn't familiar with such a upgrade. Obviously the OP wasn't familiar with Orks. This is more likely the case, that his opponent had such a upgrade and this is what he used without properly explaining it to his opponent.

Before we start saying "no units can't assault from a open-topped vehicle" without looking at logical variables and before we get too crazy technical "it's not a assault it only count as assault." (which is extremely comical response in it's own right.) let us use logic before we tell someone false information and he goes off calling his opponent a cheat because people on Dakka told him so.

I am wondering about the Immobilized/Kareen-issue.

Isn't this a case of specific (Kareen) overriding the general (Immobilized).

The Immobilized rules states; "It may not move for the rest of the game."
I believe there is an implied "of its own free will" in that sentence. I see it as opposed to the made-up sentence of; "It may not be moved for the rest of the game".

As an aside the Mawloc rules shows us that Immobilized vehicles can indeed be moved and that they are not welded/nailed/glued in place for the rest of the game.

I am well aware that the Terror From The Deep rule specifically mentions immobilized vehicles and that the Kareen rules does not.
Keep in mind that while Ramshackle/Kareen! doesn't say that immobilized Trukks are affected, it doesn't exclude them from the effect either.

Anyway, just wondering out loud here.

Yeah I'm going to have to agree with steelmage here

The ramshackle rules specifically say that when a trukk suffers a vehicle destroyed result or vehicle explodes they roll on the ramshackle table.

It doesn't say anything about immobilized or anything so i'd say RAW it will kareen.

By raw standers an immobile trukk if hit would use the ramshackle rules depending on the results of course. By fluff standers the trukk would be moved by the the force of the hit.

As much as I would like it, reading the RAW for these rules has led to me believe the kareen result doesn't apply (although I had thought it had and played it that way until I saw this read and decided to pull up the RAW)


Rules as written for all you RAW freaks out there.

(Ork Codex Pg 41)

3-4 Kareen! the shot sends the trukk out of control. move the trukk 3d6" as far as possible in a random direction (the ork player chooses if he rolls a Hit on the Scatter dice). then apply the Kaboom! result above. if the trukk would kareen into enemy models or terrain stop it 1" away

BRB Pg 61
4 Damaged- Immobilized the vehicle has taken a hit that has crippled a wheel, track, grav plate, jet or leg. It may not move for the rest of the game...


So because it may not move for the rest of the game and youare to move it as far as possible means the trukk moves 0" in a random direction as a result of a kareen result. least thats my reading of it, if someone can give a reason why it should still apply in light of the actual writing of the kareen result, i will gladly listen to them (i always liked the idea of a trukk still having that possible movement even if it was immobilized...)

WAAAGH!!!BLITZROG wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

WAAAGH!!!BLITZROG wrote:

Alienfood wrote:Question 1:
Can units in a open-topped vehicle assault FROM the vehicle? Or do they have to disembark in movement phase in order to assault

Have a nice day!

Well Orks can assault from a open-topped vehicle to another vehicle within 2inches if they purchased the boarding plank upgrade...

They can do that from an enclosed vehicle as well - what's your point?

Are you serious? Your snide comment doesn't really deserve a response but here it goes...
Obviously your oblivious to the OP question about if "Can units in a open-topped vehicle assault FROM the vehicle? Or do they have to disembark in movement phase in order to assault?," and you just wanted to drop your two-cents...
Let's use common sense and reason. In this scenario, let us assume the OP didn't know that his opponent had the boarding plank upgrade and his opponent assaulted from it. Which would raise such a question about being able to assault from a open-topped vehicle if one wasn't familiar with such a upgrade. Obviously the OP wasn't familiar with Orks. This is more likely the case, that his opponent had such a upgrade and this is what he used without properly explaining it to his opponent.

Before we start saying "no units can't assault from a open-topped vehicle" without looking at logical variables and before we get too crazy technical "it's not a assault it only count as assault." (which is extremely comical response in it's own right.) let us use logic before we tell someone false information and he goes off calling his opponent a cheat because people on Dakka told him so.

Boarding planks have a specific effect- whether the vehicle is open-topped or not makes no difference.

So, at best, your comment contributed nothing. At worst, it could be taken as implying the boarding planks don't work on enclosed vehicles.

The correct answer is: No, you cannot assault out of any vehicle. You can assault after disemarking from an open topped vehicle in the movement phase. Boarding planks have a special effect which allows a single embarked model to count-as assaulting which can only be used against a vehicle within 2".

I've always figured the kareen result isn't the truck driving off in a random direction it's the truck being blasted in a random direction. Even if immobilized the explosion lifts the truck and flings it away, kind of like an action movie. Whether that's RAW or not it's awesome to imagine and that's how my flgs plays it.

Moving as far as possible refers to, IMHO, stopping at the edge of the board, up against impassable terrain such as a house or cliff face. If it is a wide open plain it CAN move its full 3d6 from the force of the hit/blast

I would have to agree with 'swaagh and wana on this one. Fluff aside, Kareen! is a special rule which would override the normal immobilized result, but only if the trukk suffers a vehicle destroyed or explodes result as stated in the ramshackle special rule for trukks.

I agree with you all for RAI but a strict reading of the rules with the phrase "as far as possible" leads me to disagree from a RAW standpoint, my figs have played the other way but it seems there is an conundrum here that needs to be resolved.

technically the Kareeen rule still applies.

Heres why.

Specific rules and codex rules override general rules. kareen is a specific rule and is in the codex.


Kareen doesn't mention immobilized vehicles not moving so i would say it does move.

I believe the BA Magna grappler has a similer issue, but it is accepted that the vehicle gets moved regardless.



Disclaimer: this is my interpertation and may be totally wrong, but i must be shown by a rules contridiction. when all else fails, Blame GW!

It does not apply.

An immobilized trukk may not move, and the kareen rule just states it moves as far as possible. If you cannot move at all your value for "as far as possible" is zero.

This is very different to something being moved.

Specific vs general is applied here in that immobilized Trukks are more specific than the general rule fir trukks,and therefore need specific language to override the brb Immobilized rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It does not apply.

An immobilized trukk may not move, and the kareen rule just states it moves as far as possible. If you cannot move at all your value for "as far as possible" is zero.

This is very different to something being moved.

Specific vs general is applied here in that immobilized Trukks are more specific than the general rule fir trukks,and therefore need specific language to override the brb Immobilized rules.

This is a matter of perception, as i stated before, IMHO and that of my LGS is that far as possible refers to actual distance terrain allows. We like to think of it as, you hit my trukk, you broke an axle and it's jammed, stopping the wheels from moving. You hit again, causing a catastrophic injury to the vehicle, perhaps ripping the axle clean off, now clearing the obstruction allowing the truck to plunge forward as it gasses one last time right before the explosion. Immobilized doesn't last forever, there are many things that stop it. Grot riggers, meks, big meks and thats just for orks, if the trukk suddenly "lurches forward as far as it can" that doesnt matter that it is so called immobilized as the new rule overwrites, "moves as far as possible" obviously cliff faces cannot be climbed, whether the trukk is working or not, they cannot scale a building, or drive off the board. The very fact of kareen cancels out the immobilized effect. That at least is the way we, the LGS and I, see it and have always played it.

It isn't a difference in opinion but permission. You lack specific permission to move even when immobilized. It is a fine,orky houserule, but that is all it is.

BUT JUST BY SAYING IT IS A PERMISSION YOU ARE DISCOUNTING THE OTHER VALID POINTS, AND THUS MAKING IT AN OPINION. point 1. It says "the vehicle moves" not moves unless imobilized, point 2. Explode/wrecked is higher on the chart and causes 4 to break, its a different category, a HIGHER category of damage on chart, thus over writing the 4 on pen chart. The only bone of contention is the clarification of "as far as possible" the only point in the BRB that stops a vehicles possible movement, is the boards edge, another unit or impassable terrain, the kareen effect already states the vehicle moves, which, is an over riding permission.

Firstly - ALL CAPS isnt good.

Secondly - You are told to move "as far as possible" - and the BRB states you cannot move. What you are lacking is permission to say you move *even if* you are immobilsed.

You have a great houserule, but it lacks permission in the rules.

All you are doing is arguing po tay toe to pah ta tah, this arguement isnt going to get anywhere because you refuse to see my side, which is just as valid, codex overrules general rules, it says move, the only thing stopping a vehicle from moving is terain and units, the immobilization effect is not considered in this equation, but you choose to see it as it is immobilized and thus cannot move "as far as possible, since 0 movement is 0 movement" both arguements are completly valid, have a base in the rules, and make perfect sense, if you can't see this, then you just aren't as bright as you think, you will also notice, i stated that my thoughts were an opinion based on relevant rules, you are stating your version is correct, and refuse to see others logical point of views, you sir, are an elitist, good day sir...I said GOOD DAY SIR!

Wrong, specific rules override general rules.

I am not arguing the same thing at all - I have shown where you need permission to move, you respond twice with fallacious arguments (codex overrides rulebook) and your "point 1" from above, where you argue that the rules are restrictive (you have to say what you cannot do) when in fact the rules are permissive.

I have shown where you need *permission* to move (rulebook states you cannot, Kareen only requires you to move "as far as possible") while immoblised, you have failed to show permission therefore it cannot move.

You are stating your opinion as fact, when it isnt, and I have acknowledged it is a fairly Orky houserule - but it IS a houserule. If you want to get annoyed and emoragequit, do so.

See above post, you are still arguing about the same 4 words, and your understanding of its meaning, good day sir!