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.

Just to make sure I'm not cheating here:

If I put a unit (let's say 4 pallies with psychotrokes and draigo) in a Storm Raven, and my army also includes Karamazov, can I do the following?

On turn one, I move my storm raven flat-out toward target of my choice.
In shooting, I fire the Storm Raven's gun via PotMS.
Then I shoot the Raven with a Strength 10, AP 1 lance from Karamazov, resulting in a wreck/destroyed result (for the sake of argument).
According to the INAT, I'm pretty sure Draigo+squad can now assault, as Ravens are Assault Vehicles.


1. Is this legal without INAT?
2. Is this legal with INAT?
3. Would you try this tactic in a game?

Can you quote the relevant rules to back up your statements?

I found this one, but it doesn't seem to help.
Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to any embarked models, as passengers may not disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

They problem with your current theory, DR, is that they are disembarking in the shooting phase if anything.

Again, the rule he rests his argument on only mentions the movement phase. It says nothing about the shooting phase, which is the phase in question.

That aside, my devious plan doesn't work for a different reason:

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.

But, nos, if you do, what's to prevent me from thinking the "subliminal" part applies to the entire game? You're just interpreting the rule and adding an arbitrary timeframe to what it says.

Now I know for certain that the assault part doesn't work, but moving 24" with a unit of pallies isn't that bad. Given that they will likely be able to shoot in that shooting phase, the question is still relevant. It's also relevant to scattering weapons that can potentially hit your own units.

As to why you would use this tactic, I think the benefits of positioning are fairly obvious. If this is used in a later turn to grab an objective by transporting a scoring unit, the scoring unit can also fire on whatever other unit is sitting on said objective.

Just because an old edition of the rules said one thing does not mean that the same rule applies. For whatever reason, they changed the FAQ. A change to the rulebook is not really that much different. I don't make the argument that I can use the old vehicle damage table system from 3rd ed or 4th ed just because the rules used to work that way.

Here's how I see this:

DR and those like-minded see the only phase referred to is "that" movement phase. They then extrapolate that for the rest of "that" turn, any attempt at disembarkation (outside of certain special rules) will result in the destruction of the unit. This means that the (admittedly rather silly) tactic of shooting your own vehicle for effect cannot be used.

I think that those in line with my thinking recognize that while "that" movement phase indeed applies to "that" turn, "that" turn will always have happened. ANY disembarkation from the vehicle will then be prohibited (again, excluding special rules), no matter which turn it is, because in "that" movement phase (let's say it was top of turn 1) will still have been "that" movement phase relative to any of the following turns or phases. This means that if the unit ever tries to disembark for the rest of the game without using special rules, it will be destroyed. While this is a valid interpretation, it is not sound (at least to me). Therefore I posit that the rule refers to "that" movement phase and only "that" movement phase, so the previous (and rather excessively strict) interpretation is eliminated.

Oh, and an example for WanderingFox:
Q: Am I able to gain the benefits of any of my opponent’s wargear or special rules, such as Teleport Homers, Chaos Icons, Tyranid Synapse, Necron Resurrection Orbs etc?
A: In most occasions this is clear, as the rules use the words ‘friendly’ or ‘own’ to indicate your units, and ‘enemy’ for the opponent’s. On the other hand, some rules clearly specify that they affect ‘friend and foe’. A few rules are, however, slightly ambiguous as they don’t clearly specify this distinction. As a general principle, we recommend that you cannot use or gain the benefits from any of the wargear or special rules of your opponent’s army, unless specifically stated in the rule itself (‘friend or foe’) or in an official FAQ.

(Not that I agree with SeattleDV8's statement. Rather, I disagree with yours that FAQ rulings cannot go from specific --> general. If that's not what you meant, I apologize for misinterpreting you.)

But that's just it, if you want to say it ends in the next movement phase, and I say it ends in this movement phase, what is the deciding factor? It seems like my opinion vs yours.

I can make the same argument you just made for my position. You see what I mean?

Why do you assume "that" refers to turn?

Nos, you're usually right about things, but in this case, I think you're being a bit ott. Both parsings are valid ways to interpret the rule. One is not "flat wrong" or "flat right." To assume that your interpretation is better simply because it appeals to your preferred parsing of the language is unnecessary and fallacious.

This is one where I agree to disagree. Both sides have valid arguments. I could see GW supporting either interpretation.

I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation, I'm disagreeing with your attitude about the interpretation.