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.

Vongoob - so can you at least respond to the poiints showing your inaccuracies?

You made up a rule (no assaulting first turn), and you are now claiming a general answer about the BRB Assault Vehicle rule has ANYTHING to do with the Assault Vehicle rule, especially when it specifically states that it can launch an assault the turn it arrives from reserves

It is actually a very well written and concise rule. You dont have access to it, however that does not alter that fact. If you do not wish to play against someone who doesnt have the rule to hand, then dont do so.

You shoudl also be aware of how you are posting - you do give the impression, ESPECIALLY with the moaning about 40k approved ruining the game, that this is something more personal to you

 vongoob wrote:
You cannot deploy normal units so they can make a charge turn 1. deployment dimensions forbid it.

There are multiple units that can move + assault > 24", and if your opponent infiltrates/scouts you can assault his units. So this statement is inaccurate at best.

Units specifically allowed to move closer have a specific ban on charging turn 1.

Infiltrating/Scouting units do.

Units arriving from reserve are (usually) banned from assaulting, more specifically any unit that can arrive turn 1 for an alpha strike is barred from assaulting.

That's simply not true.

By the sound of it sounds like Vongoob has been playing House ruling

I think part of the problem is the Lucius has a rule with the same name as the USR. Both called Assault Vehicle.

vongoob wrote:@Nos

I will look into the BRB after I get home, and I won't try to argue anything weird until I have the book in front of me, but I was under the impression that their was in fact a rule that barred assaults on player turn 1, and was not stated just for scouts and infiltrators.

For Scouts and Infiltrators. Thats it. You are misrembering.

vongoob wrote:On top of that, you have intent. I know no one likes RAI on this RAW forum, but bear with me:

You cannot deploy normal units so they can make a charge turn 1. deployment dimensions forbid it.

Incorrect. I had already by this point given you just one, easy example of a unit which can do this, yet you stioll persist in this impression that is inaccurate Thegame has NEVER forbid first turn chargees, just made it difficult.

Any assault / open topped vehicle with a slightly longer length than width - pivot, move, deploy. You have now displaced more than 12", and so can assault.

vongoob wrote:Units specifically allowed to move closer have a specific ban on charging turn 1.

Scouts and infiltrators. Nothing else.

vongoob wrote:Units arriving from reserve are (usually) banned from assaulting, more specifically any unit that can arrive turn 1 for an alpha strike is barred from assaulting.

No such rule exists. There is a general rule about arriving from reserves, and this specifically contradicts said rule. Explicitly so.

vongoob wrote:So, it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck, and we have two instances that specify what a duck is, in writing, and an additional not required for gameplay supplement that has been super ceded by a more current main module update says yeah that's labeled a duck, but duck means goose.

No, we have an apple, and you have an orange, and you are saying the two are the same. They arent.

vongoob wrote:I can see the intent of the forge world drop pod rule. I merely argue that it is poorly worded, poorly updated, and in clear contention with a mandatory rulebook USR.

Whihc, because it is the more advanced, specific rule It OVERRIDES. Same as any other specific, advanced rule would. It hasnt been poorly updated or written, as you are making up rules that dont exist to try to dismiss this specific rule.

Should they have come up with a better name? yes. Does that alter a damn thing? No.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Vongoob - so can you at least respond to the poiints showing your inaccuracies?

You made up a rule (no assaulting first turn), and you are now claiming a general answer about the BRB Assault Vehicle rule has ANYTHING to do with the Assault Vehicle rule, especially when it specifically states that it can launch an assault the turn it arrives from reserves

It is actually a very well written and concise rule. You dont have access to it, however that does not alter that fact. If you do not wish to play against someone who doesnt have the rule to hand, then dont do so.

You should also be aware of how you are posting - you do give the impression, ESPECIALLY with the moaning about 40k approved ruining the game, that this is something more personal to you

Look bud, you are turning this into a personal attack conversation and I do not appreciate it. Most of the reason I haven't responded is I have been in class, my previous post was posted while i was dressed, ready to go, and almost late so essentially I submitted and exited my office. The rest of it is I do not enjoy putting my foot in my mouth and having to redact things, so I don't want to touch them until I have evidence(rulebooks) in hand and can address them how the deserve to be addressed.

No one is addressing what I am saying. The rules in the book, great. On army list programs ( the ones MOST of us use to format lists to avoid hand addition) the rule is SIMPLY listed as assault vehicle, with no indication it is different from the USR assault vehicle. With no distinction, or supporting evidence from the imperial armour book, there are 0 grounds to argue that it is a different rule ( a wordy way to say, show me it in writing or don't play it that way this game.)

As for the 40k approved ruing the game, look at the spartan land raider. Or the tough 8 IC wraith seer. Or, not to pick on the Eldar again, the tank with the wraithguards 2+ wound's gun that insta gibs on 6s that you can shoot across the table that also glances on 3-4 and punches on 5-6. My reasoning for disliking the rules is that they give about half the armies super powerful units, and completely ignore other armies, thus affecting game balance. But you are right, thats my personal opinion, and I apologize if you thought it was a whining cry of babyness. I apologize for having an opinion, and we can just consider the whole thing redacted if it makes you feel better.

So, please refrain from personal attacks based on ignorance. ( I am not trying to insult you, merely stating you don't know me, so stop attributing my actions to a trait you have fabricated in your mind.)

Arguing on the internet. You would think I would know better by now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

No, we have an apple, and you have an orange, and you are saying the two are the same. They arent.

No, incorrect. We have an apple (BRB assault vehicle) and we have what you say is an apple (forgeworld assault vehicle USR). both cannot be the same thing, hence the confusion and the request for clarification, which , while you are providing it you are doing so in a manner that makes me not want to buy what your selling, so to speak.

^ Point me anywhere... where Nosferatu1001 is doing a personal attack on you? this is a You make the call forum and he is simply stating the rules ( THAT YOU MENTION) so he obviously has to respond to you....

 vongoob wrote:
No, incorrect. We have an apple (BRB assault vehicle) and we have what you say is an apple (forgeworld assault vehicle USR). both cannot be the same thing, hence the confusion and the request for clarification, which , while you are providing it you are doing so in a manner that makes me not want to buy what your selling, so to speak.

The rule is different. The LDP doesn't just list "Assault Vehicle", it defines it for that vehicle. It would behoove you to know rules before attempting to argue them.

vongoob wrote:
Look bud, you are turning this into a personal attack conversation and I do not appreciate it.

Really Im not. Youre reading too much into what is said, and are getting worked up. Please dont.

vongoob wrote:Most of the reason I haven't responded is I have been in class, my previous post was posted while i was dressed, ready to go, and almost late so essentially I submitted and exited my office. The rest of it is I do not enjoy putting my foot in my mouth and having to redact things, so I don't want to touch them until I have evidence(rulebooks) in hand and can address them how the deserve to be addressed.

But you can acknowledge the existence of the counter arguments - which is that your "RAI" isnt even really arguable "RAI", as first turn charges are not a prohibited thing - just tricky to pull off.

vongoob wrote:No one is addressing what I am saying. The rules in the book, great.

Yet we have addressed it. Quite a few times now.

vongoob wrote:On army list programs ( the ones MOST of us use to format lists to avoid hand addition) the rule is SIMPLY listed as assault vehicle, with no indication it is different from the USR assault vehicle.

Sigh. have you checked Army Builder? In the current version if you hover over the Lucius Pattern "Assault Vehicle" entry, it tells you to go to IAA 2e page 32. Which is not the BRB. That is QUITE A BIG DIFFERENCE dont you think?

Does it write the full rule out? No. Have you noticed that ab40k have mostly stopped putting all the special rules in?

vongoob wrote:With no distinction, or supporting evidence from the imperial armour book, there are 0 grounds to argue that it is a different rule ( a wordy way to say, show me it in writing or don't play it that way this game.)

Which I had already addressed. By stating you dont have to play that person if they cannot show you the rules that allow them to do it. Same as people bringin along a codex army without the codex and starts claiming rules.

Apparently in your rush you managed to miss that part of my post.

vongoob wrote:As for the 40k approved ruing the game, look at the spartan land raider.

Yes, it has 1 hull point more, and can still be taken down by a lascannon shot turn 1. Oh it carries a load more models, but can still be destroyed as easily as any tank can in 6e

vongoob wrote:Or the tough 8 IC wraith seer.

That isnt an IC. How about you stop being hyperbolic when you dont actually know the rules?

vongoob wrote:Or, not to pick on the Eldar again, the tank with the wraithguards 2+ wound's gun that insta gibs on 6s that you can shoot across the table that also glances on 3-4 and punches on 5-6.

By "Across the table" you meant 36"? And how is it must difference to a basilisk, that wounds on a 2 against anything with a toughness value that ISNT a wraithlord, pens on a 6 but gets two dice to try for it, and has a 240" range, which is truly" across the table"?

vongoob wrote: My reasoning for disliking the rules is that they give about half the armies super powerful units, and completely ignore other armies, thus affecting game balance.

Nothing you have stated so far is actually that powerful, apart from the lucius.

vongoob wrote:But you are right, thats my personal opinion, and I apologize if you thought it was a whining cry of babyness.

Nope, I pointed out that this is how your points come across - that you have some personal against hte LPDP, and FW models in general. I see that part of this is down to you being misinformed, however you should look back over your posts when you arent in a hurry, and see the impression they gave.

vongoob wrote: I apologize for having an opinion, and we can just consider the whole thing redacted if it makes you feel better.

Again with the defensive posting. I wasnt saying you were wrong for having an opinion, just how that opinion was being expressed. If you have an issue there is a mod alert button.

vongoob wrote:So, please refrain from personal attacks based on ignorance. ( I am not trying to insult you, merely stating you don't know me, so stop attributing my actions to a trait you have fabricated in your mind.)

No, it is an opinion I have formed based on the information you have presented. I also have not personally attacked you.

vongoob wrote:

No, we have an apple, and you have an orange, and you are saying the two are the same. They arent.

No, incorrect. We have an apple (BRB assault vehicle)

That is, indeed, the apple

vongoob wrote:and we have what you say is an apple (forgeworld assault vehicle USR).

Ah, I see the metaphor slipped past you. I am saying the FW rule is the orange

vongoob wrote: both cannot be the same thing, hence the confusion and the request for clarification, which , while you are providing it you are doing so in a manner that makes me not want to buy what your selling, so to speak.

And your entire posts so far have come off as defensive, rude and as someone who is trying every little trick they can think of to make somethign which is very clearly written not "work", has made up rules to support it, and then created an "intention" of the rules designer based off misinformation and the same made up rules.

I was all set to try and explain myself further, because I honestly would just like to have a discussion and get this clarified, but as I am either incorrectly stating my issue, or it is being incorrectly interpreted there is no point.

Have a nice day gentlemen, I will see myself out.

Vongoob,
The 'Assault Vehicle' rule from the forge world book is not replaced by the 'Assault Vehicle' printed in the BRB because, while they have the same name, they are not the same rule. This rule has not been addressed in any FAQ. The one you quoted was specifically for the BRB and in no way should be applied to any other source material.
Yes, it can be very confusing if you are only going by some one's army list, and not the source material the list was generated from. If you are unfamiliar with a rule and your opponent cannot give you a copy of the rule to read there is no reason to take their word for it or allow that player to potentially 'make it up as they go along'.
In this case the LDP has been given permission to behave differently and the source material for that permission can be verified, that is why no one else has an issue with it.

 vongoob wrote:
I was all set to try and explain myself further, because I honestly would just like to have a discussion and get this clarified, but as I am either incorrectly stating my issue, or it is being incorrectly interpreted there is no point.

Have a nice day gentlemen, I will see myself out.

The issue is that noone understands the issue you have with the rule. The written A.V. rule from IAA 2nd edition is very straightforward.

2 short questions:

Can i field a combat squadded unit in one pod? Like 5 Combimelta Vets and 5 Combiflamer Vets entering in the same pod but attacking different targets?

How many pods can i drop via drop pod assault in round 1: 2 or 3?

tommse wrote:
2 short questions:

Can i field a combat squadded unit in one pod? Like 5 Combimelta Vets and 5 Combiflamer Vets entering in the same pod but attacking different targets?

Answered in the FAQ:

SM FAQ wrote:Note that two combat squads split from
the same unit can embark in the same transport vehicle,
providing its transport capacity allows.

How many pods can i drop via drop pod assault in round 1: 2 or 3?

Read the rules for Drop Pod Assault - it is very specific on how many Drop Pods arrive first turn.

tommse wrote:
How many pods can i drop via drop pod assault in round 1: 2 or 3?

Its not a question of CAN but a question of MUST. One half of the drop pods (rounded up) are required to arrive on turn 1. The rest must fallow the rules for normal reserves.