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.

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?

no.

BRB FAQ explicitly covers this, by saying that any vehicles special rules cease to apply when it is destroyed

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.

edit: ninjaed by 8 seconds...

Nah, you put the quote in - much better!

Hm, that seems pretty crappy considering his example states that the unit already disembarked and the FAQ has them still in the vehicle. I get it, but man that's really illogical even for this game.

This might be splitting the hair mighty thin, but the FAQ example specifically has the models still inside the vehicle, ergo the destruction of the vehicle happens before they disembark. If they have already disembarked before the destruction, haven't they already gained the benefit of the special rule, even though they have yet to apply it? I realize that the number of times this would ever come up would be nil, nonetheless, I find the issue interesting from an academic standpoint.

I'd say no - you check when you need to apply the rule, not when you disembark.

they disembarked ALREADY from the vehicle which has a rule allowing them to assault in the same turn they have disembarked form it.

I see no logic in arguing otherwise other then a desire to be a TFG/rules lawyer.

I would thank any opponent who argued otherwise as he has saved me the time of ever considering playing him again...

CT GAMER wrote:they disembarked ALREADY from the vehicle which has a rule allowing them to assault in the same turn they have disembarked form it.

I see no logic in arguing otherwise other then a desire to be a TFG/rules lawyer.

I would thank any opponent who argued otherwise as he has saved me the time of ever considering playing him again...

Thanks, I love you too.

Please stop being so subjective when analyzing rules, especially in YMDC.
And yes, I would argue this in a tournament. In a friendly game I don't care enough.

rigeld2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:they disembarked ALREADY from the vehicle which has a rule allowing them to assault in the same turn they have disembarked form it.

I see no logic in arguing otherwise other then a desire to be a TFG/rules lawyer.

I would thank any opponent who argued otherwise as he has saved me the time of ever considering playing him again...

Thanks, I love you too.

Please stop being so subjective when analyzing rules, especially in YMDC.
And yes, I would argue this in a tournament. In a friendly game I don't care enough.

I stand behind my original statement regardless of how you (in the general sense) rationalize your behavior.

And I see no reason to play a tournament game with any less sportsmnship and common sense then a casual one, and being TFG is just as repugnant in either case.

The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

CT GAMER wrote:I stand behind my original statement regardless of how you (in the general sense) rationalize your behavior.

And I see no reason to play a tournament game with any less sportsmnship and common sense then a casual one, and being TFG is just as repugnant in either case.

You're seriously going to call me TFG for trying to enforce a rule? It's not about being sportsmanlike - I can do that just fine thanks.
It's about fun in casual games. My friends don't have as much fun discussing rules, so I rarely object anymore (unless its really egregious).
In a tournament one of the TOs jobs is to settle rules disputes.

Keep insinuating that I'm a jerk, TFG, or some other term though. It's amusing.

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

CT GAMER wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

This argument would work for apothecaries and sanguine priests as well - they've joined the unit so the unit gets FNP, even after the apothecary is dead amirite?

rigeld2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

This argument would work for apothecaries and sanguine priests as well - they've joined the unit so the unit gets FNP, even after the apothecary is dead amirite?

No, that's a totally different scenario entirely and doesn't apply here in the slightest.

Mainly because, the factor to get FNP is for the apothecary to be IN the unit. If he's dead, he's not in the unit and FNP ceases to apply immediately. Assault ramps, however, only need to meet the criteria of the unit disembarking from the vehicle in the movement phase (movement speed allowance restrictions applying, of course).

rigeld2 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.

I can see why people really want this to not mean what it says it means, but the answer looks pretty clear to me. This ruling would also stop Frag Assault Launchers from applying if the vehicle is destroyed.

The FAQ Applies, you can't assault. I use Land Raiders too, it sucks for me too, but, next time, Don't drop a Orbital Strike near your Land Raider.

Would this apply to open topped vehicles too as the vehicle is no longer open topped?

Crazyterran wrote:The FAQ Applies, you can't assault. I use Land Raiders too, it sucks for me too, but, next time, Don't drop a Orbital Strike near your Land Raider.

This right here. An example is just that...an example. It doesn't cover ALL cases. The FAQ is very clear, if the Landraider is destroyed then then Assault Vehicle rule no longer applies. Doesn't matter if they disemarked or got shot out.....the vehicle (and the rule) is now non-existent so you have no option to charge.

Enforcing the rules is not unsportsmanlike or being TFG. If I go to a tournament and completely crush an opponent while forcing him to play be the rules while they threw a tantrum about it (not saying that you are), what have I done to be a bad sport? The person that lost the match would be the one being a poor sport and if I were a TO I'd dock him, not the guy who enforced the rules/FAQ.

Hell the exact same applies to "friendly games". I make no distinction between "friendly" and "competitive" games. The whole concept of differences between the two is just dumb to me.

Logically, yes Vorpalhit. I suppose it would. And just for the record, this has never actually happened to me. It's a purely academic question.

rigeld2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

This argument would work for apothecaries and sanguine priests as well - they've joined the unit so the unit gets FNP, even after the apothecary is dead amirite?

A dead apothecary can't perform first aid, nor dispense pain meds, nor tend wounds which occur after he is dead.

I rarely understand the break in logic people try to force into these sorts of lawyering debates. If one applies a little common sense many of these things clear themselves up nicely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:I stand behind my original statement regardless of how you (in the general sense) rationalize your behavior.

And I see no reason to play a tournament game with any less sportsmnship and common sense then a casual one, and being TFG is just as repugnant in either case.

You're seriously going to call me TFG for trying to enforce a rule? It's not about being sportsmanlike - I can do that just fine thanks.
It's about fun in casual games. My friends don't have as much fun discussing rules, so I rarely object anymore (unless its really egregious).
In a tournament one of the TOs jobs is to settle rules disputes.

Keep insinuating that I'm a jerk, TFG, or some other term though. It's amusing.

You can rationalize your stance on this issue any way that makes you feel better, but I stand beside my statement on this specific issue.

The beauty is we never have to play each other.

Have a nice day.

While it does seem a little counter-intuitive, I see no reason the FAQ answer wouldn't apply to this situation as well. The timing of the disembark is more or less irrelevant... in both cases, the unit disembarks on the same turn, but is unable to assault as the vehicle's special rule no longer applies once it is destroyed.

It's a quirk... but ultimately not one that's actually going to come up very often on the table. The number of events that could cause your vehicle to be destroyed in between your models disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is fairly small.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:... If one applies a little common sense many of these things clear themselves up nicely.

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

If 40K was more of a real-world simulation, that might make a difference. But the abstraction required by the rules means that there are a lot of things that don't make sense form a real-world perspective at a quick glance. For a lot of players, just taking the rules as written and not trying to interject 'common sense' logic into interpreting them keeps things running more smoothly.

You're free to interpret the rules as you choose, of course... but it would be appreciated if you refrained from being rude to those who do it differently. And that's a generic 'you' by the way, aimed at both sides of the discussion... Keep it civil, folks.

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

"Sense" is not common. Never has been, never will be.

CT GAMER wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant because in the sequence of time the shooting and explosion happens before combat begins. I'm a big time SM fanboy, but even the best soldiers would have their concentration on combat broken by their transport exploding. The only flaw with this logic is say that something blows up next to them that they didn't disembark from, they still get to charge.

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?

I don't think Open-Topped vehicles are affected because being Open-Topped is neither an 'upgrade' nor a 'special rule', and that is what is denied by the FAQ.

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

CT GAMER wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Movac wrote:The FAQ makes sense in reality. A LR is an assault vehicle with doors specifically designed for that purpose. The units inside have a door and usually an order to get out and attack when the door is opened. If that vehicle is destroyed the units would be very much distracted, especially with something as large an a LR.

Ya, the FAQ makes sense because it references a unit that hasn't disembarked yet. In the OP's example they HAD disembarked already, meeting the requirements of assault ramps. It seems silly to me to retroactively take that benefit away after they had met the requirement but before they actually got to the take the action.

Agreed.

They ALREADY ran down the ramp and are OUTSIDE the vehicle on their way to the enemy. The fact that it explodes now is totally irrelevant.

they ran down the ramp are 6" away and behind thy hear the sound of their landraider being obliterated. i could see how they might not get to use the frag launchers that are ON THE LANDRAIDER which has been destroyed.

Fluff is not a means to justify a rules argument (while often logical, you can almost always find a fluff argument to counter the point as well).

The FAQ wording is what must be used.