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.

I saw that in the new codex an upgrade allows you to move your raider an additional 2d6 inches in the movement phase. Another allows you to ram with it. If I drive 24+2d6 and slam into the front of a vehicle, destroying myself and the troops are forced to disembark, is there anything stopping me from fleeting or assaulting?

The BBB says first that you may not assault if a vehicle has moved.

It also says that you may not disembark if the vehicle moves flat out.

However open topped says that I may assault after disembark, just leaving the problem that you cannot normally disembark from a vehicle moving flat out.

I read some other old threads in regards to orks with trukks, but I wasn't sure if they were allowed to do it due to the ramshackle rule, or if there was some reason that DE in a transport could not.

In addition, is the consensus still that if you move flat out with a vehicle during your turn and are wrecked, that everyone in the vehicle is killed (since they cannot disembark?)

If you explode you are golden, as you didnt disembark. If you wreck then you may not disembark at all, and die...

Thanks!

Is the Raider a tank?

It can tank shock with the right upgrade, makes its hull +D3 from memory.

Aha, I see. Well, otherwise the problem would've been solved

Prodigalson wrote:
The BBB says first that you may not assault if a vehicle has moved.

I think you've spilled blue paint all over your rulebook!

Being able to Tank Shock does not mean it will be able to Ram. Refer to the current Dark Eldar FAQ and the current item that allows a Raider to Tank Shock, but not to Ram. Does the new one specifically say it can Ram? Or does it only say Tank Shock? Guess we'll have to wait 6 months for GW to FAQ it.................................

Current codex FAQ (old codex?) says Torture Amps CAN'T ram.

So unless the new codex really changed everything, I am not sure how a large boombox allows Jabba's barge to ram stuff...

don_mondo wrote:Being able to Tank Shock does not mean it will be able to Ram. Refer to the current Dark Eldar FAQ and the current item that allows a Raider to Tank Shock, but not to Ram. Does the new one specifically say it can Ram? Or does it only say Tank Shock? Guess we'll have to wait 6 months for GW to FAQ it.................................

Doesn't actually matter if it only says it can tank shock anyway, as soon as the new dex is out, the old FAQ is irrelevant, and according to the Ork FAQ "Ramming is just a type of Tank Shock".

The current DE FAQ is the only thing preventing Torture Amps from ramming.

That being said, the new version of them (Shock Prow) specifically grants a +D3 front armour bonus when ramming, so yes, they definitely can ram.

don_mondo wrote:Being able to Tank Shock does not mean it will be able to Ram. Refer to the current Dark Eldar FAQ and the current item that allows a Raider to Tank Shock, but not to Ram. Does the new one specifically say it can Ram? Or does it only say Tank Shock? Guess we'll have to wait 6 months for GW to FAQ it.................................

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock.

If it can Tank Shock, it can Ram.

If you move within a transport you may not assault unless your vehicle has assault vehicle, is opened topped (Etc.)

However if you are embarked on a transport that moves flat out, you may not assault in that assault phase.

so no flat out assaulting.

The new codex even says it gets a bonus when Ramming, so yes, it can ram.

Yes, the unit inside can assault if the raider Explodes.

Yes, the unit inside are all killed if the raider is Wrecked.

No, you can't get more than S10 on a ram!

Oh, can't wait to see this applied in a game. Suicide Raiders, ftw?

Yeah they need to make a rule change for this ramming gak.gak.. its not such a big deal for friendly games when you can make your own rules up,.. but I like to try for realism when I play, and if a raider hurtles the full length of the board and blats into your landraider at 160mph, I'm sorry but some scantily clad space pervs aren't going to nonchalantly leap out and merrily plan their next move, they are going to at the very best, spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair, but possibly be instantly evaporated!

Makes no sense to me.

mattyrm wrote:Makes no sense to me.

The rules are very clear though.

Hoping for your transport to explode isn't all that hot, really. The passengers take damage and a pinning check for it and you lose a fast Dark Lance platform.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah they need to make a rule change for this ramming gak.gak.. its not such a big deal for friendly games when you can make your own rules up,.. but I like to try for realism when I play, and if a raider hurtles the full length of the board and blats into your landraider at 160mph, I'm sorry but some scantily clad space pervs aren't going to nonchalantly leap out and merrily plan their next move, they are going to at the very best, spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair, but possibly be instantly evaporated!

Makes no sense to me.

the same sorta logic could be applied to your termies in the land raider. If a plane crashed into a tank the people in the tank wouldn't be getting out.

The rules let your termies survive and the evil space elves also have a chance of surviving.

BrockRitcey wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Yeah they need to make a rule change for this ramming gak.gak.. its not such a big deal for friendly games when you can make your own rules up,.. but I like to try for realism when I play, and if a raider hurtles the full length of the board and blats into your landraider at 160mph, I'm sorry but some scantily clad space pervs aren't going to nonchalantly leap out and merrily plan their next move, they are going to at the very best, spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair, but possibly be instantly evaporated!

Makes no sense to me.

the same sorta logic could be applied to your termies in the land raider. If a plane crashed into a tank the people in the tank wouldn't be getting out.

The rules let your termies survive and the evil space elves also have a chance of surviving.

Considering that the Terminator Armour is, in fact, far more protection than the tank could ever offer...

mattyrm wrote:Yeah they need to make a rule change for this ramming gak.gak.. its not such a big deal for friendly games when you can make your own rules up,.. but I like to try for realism when I play, and if a raider hurtles the full length of the board and blats into your landraider at 160mph, I'm sorry but some scantily clad space pervs aren't going to nonchalantly leap out and merrily plan their next move, they are going to at the very best, spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair, but possibly be instantly evaporated!

Makes no sense to me.

They aren't "nonchalantly leaping out" they are taking a Str 3 hit (so a hit that has equal force then that of which their bodies are made to withstand), possibly surviving, and being pissed/excited as all hell and ready to fight!

Believe me, this makes a HELL of a lot more sense then the fact that a Lascannon has a 1 in 6 (same chance as a tau's fist) chance of bouncing off of a Tyranid Spore mine (t1)...

Embarked units take a strength 4 hit.

SaintHazard wrote:Embarked units take a strength 4 hit.

not when its open topped...

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Embarked units take a strength 4 hit.

not when its open topped...

Yes, that is true. I have some kind of issue with paying attention this morning, I apologize.

SaintHazard wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Embarked units take a strength 4 hit.

not when its open topped...

Yes, that is true. I have some kind of issue with paying attention this morning, I apologize.

Its all good, also thought I would mention, the squad would not be able to assault if the vehicle was not open topped, so for instance, if you did this with a Rhino, and the Rhino Exploded as a result of the ram, the marines (assuming you are running marines in them) would NOT be able to assault in the same turn as the Rhino does not have assault ramps (or any rule that would allow this).

Actually, that part IS wrong, for one simple reason: if the Rhino exploded, the embarked unit did not "disembark." They are simply "no longer embarked." Since they have not performed the voluntary action of "disembarking," they can assault (assuming they pass their pinning test).

This works because "disembark" has a specific definition in the rulebook, and the unit previously embarked in the Rhino did not do it.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Its all good, also thought I would mention, the squad would not be able to assault if the vehicle was not open topped, so for instance, if you did this with a Rhino, and the Rhino Exploded as a result of the ram, the marines (assuming you are running marines in them) would NOT be able to assault in the same turn as the Rhino does not have assault ramps (or any rule that would allow this).

Actually....

They can.

It doesn't matter that it isn't open topped, because the Marines never Disembark.

SaintHazard wrote:Actually, that part IS wrong, for one simple reason: if the Rhino exploded, the embarked unit did not "disembark." They are simply "no longer embarked." Since they have not performed the voluntary action of "disembarking," they can assault (assuming they pass their pinning test).

This works because "disembark" has a specific definition in the rulebook, and the unit previously embarked in the Rhino did not do it.

+1

Gwar! wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Its all good, also thought I would mention, the squad would not be able to assault if the vehicle was not open topped, so for instance, if you did this with a Rhino, and the Rhino Exploded as a result of the ram, the marines (assuming you are running marines in them) would NOT be able to assault in the same turn as the Rhino does not have assault ramps (or any rule that would allow this).

Actually....

They can.

It doesn't matter that it isn't open topped, because the Marines never Disembark.

SaintHazard wrote:Actually, that part IS wrong, for one simple reason: if the Rhino exploded, the embarked unit did not "disembark." They are simply "no longer embarked." Since they have not performed the voluntary action of "disembarking," they can assault (assuming they pass their pinning test).

This works because "disembark" has a specific definition in the rulebook, and the unit previously embarked in the Rhino did not do it.

+1

DOH! Silly me!

Now one other question... does this mean that a unit which "exits" this way would be in the clear to embark apon a different nearby trasport in the same movement phase?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:DOH! Silly me!

Now one other question... does this mean that a unit which "exits" this way would be in the clear to embark apon a different nearby trasport in the same movement phase?

That depends. For example, if the vehicle that was just destroyed had done so by ramming another vehicle and blowing itself up, then the occupants, regardless of whether or not they "disembarked," would count as having moved. They would not be able to move any further in the same movement phase, or perform any voluntary actions that having moved keeps them from performing. Basically, when the vehicle moved, the embarked unit moved as well - or to be more accurate, counts as having moved as well.

So, no.

However, if the vehicle was destroyed by other means, and had not moved that turn, I'd say yes. The embarked unit does not count as having moved, so may move and embark normally in the same movement phase. How you'd manage that is beyond me, but in a purely hypothetical situation where all of the above conditions have been met, yes, they could embark in another transport.

SaintHazard wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Being able to Tank Shock does not mean it will be able to Ram. Refer to the current Dark Eldar FAQ and the current item that allows a Raider to Tank Shock, but not to Ram. Does the new one specifically say it can Ram? Or does it only say Tank Shock? Guess we'll have to wait 6 months for GW to FAQ it.................................

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock.

If it can Tank Shock, it can Ram.

Current Dark Eldar FAQ says otherwise.........................

And thanks to those that answered what the codex says.

don_mondo wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Being able to Tank Shock does not mean it will be able to Ram. Refer to the current Dark Eldar FAQ and the current item that allows a Raider to Tank Shock, but not to Ram. Does the new one specifically say it can Ram? Or does it only say Tank Shock? Guess we'll have to wait 6 months for GW to FAQ it.................................

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock.

If it can Tank Shock, it can Ram.

Current Dark Eldar FAQ says otherwise.........................

BRB, page 69. Second column, first sentence:

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock"

Also, the FAQs are soft material, not hard rules, and often contradict one another. For example, the Ork FAQ says ramming IS a kind of tank shock, and therefore contradicts the Dark Eldar FAQ. One of the billion million reasons to not put any credence in the FAQs whatsoever.