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.

40k-noob wrote:Wow this is issue seems to be bigger than I thought.

I will definitely have to discuss with any opponent pre-game to see if we can come to an understanding.

As such that will require that I keep two lists handy depending on the what is agreed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:Well, let me ask you all a question: can a unit who disembarks from a vehicle that wrecked shoot as normal in their Shooting phase or do they shoot counting as having moved?

According to the "you cant assault" side, then even if in your turn you do NOT move, then you still fire as having moved!!!

Tah Dah!!! Physics GW Style!!

If making conjecture about the rule from a game-design perspective, it could easily have been written this way on purpose to make it so that units do not gain a bonus from having their transport wrecked.

Right, if your transport does not die, then if you disembark you cannot assault and fire counting as moving.

If your transport dies, why would they design it so that you can circumvent the restrictions from moving and shooting that disembarking normally confers?

40k-noob wrote:
As such that will require that I keep two lists handy depending on the what is agreed.

and THIS is why GW loves to write confusing rules ! They're drooling over all the money you'll need to spend to have two viable armylists at the ready!

Tah Dah!

Grugknuckle wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
As such that will require that I keep two lists handy depending on the what is agreed.

and THIS is why GW loves to write confusing rules ! They're drooling over all the money you'll need to spend to have two viable armylists at the ready!

Tah Dah!

Unfortunately, me thinks you have it dead to rights on that point :(

willydstyle wrote:
If making conjecture about the rule from a game-design perspective, it could easily have been written this way on purpose to make it so that units do not gain a bonus from having their transport wrecked.

It could have been written this way on purpose. Sure. But if it was on purpose, then you would think that they would spell it out clearly with an example. They didn't. It could also have been written with the intent that you COULD assault in your following turn. But they didn't spell that out either.

Now I'm not arguing that they did or didn't write it with one intention or another. What I AM arguing is that they don't care. They are perfectly content to let us hash out the specifics as long as every one of us pays them $75 for the privilege. Probably, most of the big issues that are being discussed on YMDC are really just oversights on their part - unintentional holes in the rules that they didn't see and such. I suspect - and I don't claim to have any evidence for this beyond a gut feeling, but - I suspect that several (5 or more) people were actually typing the text of the rules and that not enough attention was paid to how person A's text would flow with person B's text. Quite likely that they spent too much time worrying about the fancy pictures, photos and advertisements for miniatures and not enough time giving a about the rules.

So here we are. Arguing passionately for what we think the rules are and what we think they should be because we love the game. There they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Now that I have my book in hand....The wrecked/explodes rules are even more sloppy than I remembered.

As much as I dislike it, since it makes transports death traps, I have to agree with the OP. It still doesn't make any sense though, and hopefully will be FAQ'd just to clear it up some. What irritates me so much is that all of the disembarking rules read like it's all voluntary disembarking. Nothing insinuates that it could be for voluntary or involuntary disembarkation. If the wrecked rule said "must immediately EMERGENCY disembark", it would fix all of this. That nice bold line that says, "The unit cannot then perform any voluntary actions for the rest of the turn." fixes this whole mess. The following player turn would start fresh, with no carry-over from the previous turn. It almost insinuates this is supposed to mean "emergency disembarkation" in the next line.

I found another wrench to throw in the wrecked/disembarking as well though....maybe.

The line under disembarking that says, "A unit that begins its movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark....so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 6."

So if your squad began it's last movement phase embarked and the vehicle moves over 6", then gets wrecked in your opponents shooting phase, your unit may not disembark at all. Essentially, they're all dead. Am I reading this right?

And strict RAW would allow models that disembark from an assault vehicle to assault in their opponents assault phase if their transport was wrecked, then not assault the following turn. Same conclusion as OP.

willydstyle wrote:

40k-noob wrote:Wow this is issue seems to be bigger than I thought.

I will definitely have to discuss with any opponent pre-game to see if we can come to an understanding.

As such that will require that I keep two lists handy depending on the what is agreed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:Well, let me ask you all a question: can a unit who disembarks from a vehicle that wrecked shoot as normal in their Shooting phase or do they shoot counting as having moved?

According to the "you cant assault" side, then even if in your turn you do NOT move, then you still fire as having moved!!!

Tah Dah!!! Physics GW Style!!

If making conjecture about the rule from a game-design perspective, it could easily have been written this way on purpose to make it so that units do not gain a bonus from having their transport wrecked.

Right, if your transport does not die, then if you disembark you cannot assault and fire counting as moving.

If your transport dies, why would they design it so that you can circumvent the restrictions from moving and shooting that disembarking normally confers?

Because you will not always have your transport die within charge range of the enemy. It is not fair to determine the legitimacy of an interpretation based on one limited circumstance.

The dictionary definition of subsequent is "following in time, order, or place." In their subsequent shooting/assault phase does not explicitly say that it is the next phase on their turn but simply the next phase they are a part of. Being able to assault the next turn after your transport explodes is only an advantage if you are within 12" of the enemy when they blow it up. If you are able to get that close then maybe you deserve that advantage. I also think that this edition is focusing on more strategy than before. You have to think before you act. I it really a good idea to blow up that transport when they could charge at me or should I wait until they disembark to blow them to pieces?

STOP READING. THIS THREAD HAS BEEN ANSWERED.

Tetrisfreak already answered this for you on page one, but everyone seemed to glance over it. He wrote:

"Should you and your group play in this manner [[allowing units to assault after their transport was destroyed, assault transport or not]], it would encourage rhinos and chimeras and other transports to actually !hope! to get destroyed in some manner by the opponent after rushing in. If the rhino is unhurt, the models inside can only get out and fire. Had I spent the time to wreck it on my turn, now i've basically given you an advantage of being able to assault as well when your turn comes around? Plus if i ignore the rhino, it'll just keep tank shocking around my deployment zone until it's dealt with. It's a no-lose scenario for any transport heavy army if you play it your way. By disallowing assaults the following turn after a destroyed result, the balance put forth in the rules is maintained."

Please stop worrying about the specific words of "their," "immediately," etc. Just think about it. Pretend you're the creator of this game. Tetrisfreak spells it out exactly for you guys.

Just think; how annoying is it when you have a group of boys surrounding a tank (with a Nob that can potentially kill that tank,) and you have to hesitate to kill it? You hesitate because you know that tank is full of imperial guards, and you don't want them to assault you. You want to assault THEM. But you know by destroying the tank, you're giving them the advantage by giving them a chance to move, shoot, and assault you.

I guarantee you the creators did not intend on giving transports such an obvious advantage, because they wrote that the unit in the transport WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ASSAULT IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT ASSAULT PHASE.

No hate here, guys. Just want to point out that we're arguing over the wrong thing, and this should be pretty obvious.

The current rules encourage you to "hope" to be destroyed rather than wrecked. The current rules encourage you to not use transports in general.

Intentions or not, the rules aren't written that way. This is why FAQ's exist. What GW intended was not properly or clearly stated leaving players to argue about it in threads like this one.

aidethepally wrote:No hate here, guys. Just want to point out that we're arguing over the wrong thing, and this should be pretty obvious.

Welcome to the Internet and YMDC!

I understand what everyone is saying and this hasn't been addressed in some time, but I hope that this has been resolved.

The way I see it is they are saying that you are not allowed to assault in the same turn your vehicle is destroyed. If the opponent destroys your vehicle on their turn (via shooting or close combat) then you are allowed to retaliate on your own turn.

If the opponent destroys the vehicle on your turn then you are not able to do anything other than move and shoot the survivors. If anyone doesn't know how that happens it is outflanking with an assault vehicle that is subsequently destroyed by interceptor fire. While this is a few and far between occurrence it can happen and this RAW clearly denies that ability.

I'm not sure if this was FAQ'd and if so I apologize but this is my interpretation.

Two things:
1. Let sleeping threads lie. This thread is almost a year old. Threadmancy is a bad idea.
2. Covered in the FAQ:

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault
Vehicle.

Thread terminated; threadnomancy.