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.

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

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

Not if the vehicle moved before you disembarked.

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

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

The answer would be yes.

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

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

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

pk1 wrote:The answer would be yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fafnir13 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

1. A medic (apothecary) dies

2. someone is THEN injured/killed

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

Same specific instance of sequence with the land Raider:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

CT GAMER wrote:

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

1. A medic (apothecary) dies

2. someone is THEN injured/killed

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

Same specific instance of sequence with the land Raider:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What say you?

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

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

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

CT GAMER wrote:

insaniak wrote:

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

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

[snipped text]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easy

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

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

Easy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets look at it the other way:

Units may move and assault unless otherwise restricted.

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

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

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

False.

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

CT GAMER wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

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

Easy

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

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

I'm glad you got my sarcasm CT GAMER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desperation, likely.

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