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.

LOL Really. How is this rule confusing???

Never have you been able iirc to charge in the opponents turn.

Simply put when you disembark from an assault vehicle you may assault, whether it was voluntary, or blown out of it. Obviously goes without saying in YOUR assault phase.

My god people how do some of you make it through the day?

Lungpickle wrote:
LOL Really. How is this rule confusing???

Never have you been able iirc to charge in the opponents turn.

Simply put when you disembark from an assault vehicle you may assault, whether it was voluntary, or blown out of it. Obviously goes without saying in YOUR assault phase.

My god people how do some of you make it through the day?

If you're blown out you do not get to assault in your assault phase.
AV rule allows you to assault during the turn you disembarked - being blown out would be your opponents assault phase.
Normal disembarking rules say that you cannot assault during "their next assault phase". That'd be during your turn - not the same turn AV lifts the restriction.

pAGE 33 REFERS TO ASSAULT VEHICLES AND OPEN TOPPED VEHICLES SINCE THEY ARE TREATED AS ASSAULT VEHICLES. tHE EMBARKING RULES ARE FOR ALL OTHER VEHICLES THAT CARRY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ASSAULT VEHICLES.

SOORY BOUT caps. However there is one rule that does affect the troops disembarking from any vehicle and thats emergency disembarkation.Page 79

No assaulting in your opponents turn thats your turn. From what I understand from my limited play time is that there is no codex nor BRB that allows any unit to assault out of turn.

Disembarkation resrictions apply to all transports ecept assault vehicles because they have their own separate rule on page 33.

Lungpickle wrote:
pAGE 33 REFERS TO ASSAULT VEHICLES AND OPEN TOPPED VEHICLES SINCE THEY ARE TREATED AS ASSAULT VEHICLES. tHE EMBARKING RULES ARE FOR ALL OTHER VEHICLES THAT CARRY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ASSAULT VEHICLES.

SOORY BOUT caps. However there is one rule that does affect the troops disembarking from any vehicle and thats emergency disembarkation.Page 79

No assaulting in your opponents turn thats your turn. From what I understand from my limited play time is that there is no codex nor BRB that allows any unit to assault out of turn.

Disembarkation resrictions apply to all transports ecept assault vehicles because they have their own separate rule on page 33.

Not true whatsoever. The AV rules override specific disembarking rules - they're very clear about what is allowed and what isn't.

Bear in mind you do not lose a hull point for failing a dangerous terrain test, as you never suffera penetrating hit

rigeld2 wrote:

Drager wrote:

Where is this general restriction, page reference please. I can't find it.

It goes hand in hand with the fact that you need permission to do something in your opponents turn. A lack of permission is a restriction.

I think we simply disagree here I see a clearly written permission you do not. I see no additional restriction on that permission, you do. Either way round it's pretty unresolvable, I am confident we are both reading and understanding the rules, just coming to different conclusions on RAW.

Is there anything more to your argument I am missing or anything of mine you need clarified, otherwise I think its time to agree to disagree on this one.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're blown out you do not get to assault in your assault phase.
AV rule allows you to assault during the turn you disembarked - being blown out would be your opponents assault phase.
Normal disembarking rules say that you cannot assault during "their next assault phase". That'd be during your turn - not the same turn AV lifts the restriction.

Absolutely agreed RAW. Doubt that is RAI myself, especially as I see the same reading of RAW givning permission to charge in the opponents turn (I know you don't see that).

rigeld2 wrote:Not true whatsoever. The AV rules override specific disembarking rules - they're very clear about what is allowed and what isn't.

Agreed again.

dufus0001 wrote:But the OP is still a tard

Now this is both attempting to bully me by belittling my intellect (which won't work), and using an inappropriate term to do so.

It's not OK to call people 'tard, implying there is something wrong with having a lower than normal intelligence. That is really devaluing to people who do have a lower than normal intelligence. That's not ok and needlessly cruel. If you want to insult me, fine, I'm a big boy I can take it, but please don't use terms that are likely to have collateral effects on other readers that is unfair and inconsiderate.

If you want more targeted insults how about conceited, block headed, douchebag, prat or fething asswipe. They can be directed my way without offending anyone else.

Whilst your at it, maybe you'd like to answer the HYWPI question and take notes from rigeld, we disagree, but rigeld does not feel the need to call me names because of it.

Drager wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Drager wrote:

Where is this general restriction, page reference please. I can't find it.

It goes hand in hand with the fact that you need permission to do something in your opponents turn. A lack of permission is a restriction.

I think we simply disagree here I see a clearly written permission you do not. I see no additional restriction on that permission, you do. Either way round it's pretty unresolvable, I am confident we are both reading and understanding the rules, just coming to different conclusions on RAW.

Is there anything more to your argument I am missing or anything of mine you need clarified, otherwise I think its time to agree to disagree on this one.

You say that... and then...

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're blown out you do not get to assault in your assault phase.
AV rule allows you to assault during the turn you disembarked - being blown out would be your opponents assault phase.
Normal disembarking rules say that you cannot assault during "their next assault phase". That'd be during your turn - not the same turn AV lifts the restriction.

Absolutely agreed RAW. Doubt that is RAI myself, especially as I see the same reading of RAW givning permission to charge in the opponents turn (I know you don't see that).

rigeld2 wrote:Not true whatsoever. The AV rules override specific disembarking rules - they're very clear about what is allowed and what isn't.

Agreed again.

WAT?!



edit: So you're still thinking that the latter part of the sentence is considered separately from the first part?
Why? What basis do you have for that? It's not adding additional permission, it's clarifying the permission the AV rule is already granting.
You can tell because there's a comma so it's all part of the same sentence.

Ok

Let me see if i got this right now.

1. (non assault)Rhino with 10 guys drives 6", stops. Passengers get out, move up to 6 inches thn stop. Shoot or do nothing in the shooting phase. Assault phase they cant assault.

2. (assault)Land raider goes 6, termies go 6 dont shoot and cant assault?

3. Open topped Ghoat arc goes 6 troops go 6 dont shoot they cant assault also?

Is this what Rigid is saying.

Edited by Manchu.

Lungpickle wrote:
Ok

Let me see if i got this right now.

1. (non assault)Rhino with 10 guys drives 6", stops. Passengers get out, move up to 6 inches thn stop. Shoot or do nothing in the shooting phase. Assault phase they cant assault.

2. (assault)Land raider goes 6, termies go 6 dont shoot and cant assault?

3. Open topped Ghoat arc goes 6 troops go 6 dont shoot they cant assault also?

Is this what Rigid is saying.

Not even close.
1. Is correct.
2. They can assault.
3. They can assault.

The issue comes when your opponent shoots the vehicle out from under you.
1. No change, can't assault.
2. Forced to disembark. AV rule allows them to assault that turn, but you're unable to assault in your opponents assault phase. They are then unable to assault in their next assault phase due to the normal disembark rules.
3. Same as 2.

ill give you a scenario and you tell me how this works out.

an ultramarine tactical squad is 6" from a chaos land raider. the tactical squad shoots its lascannon at the land raider scoring a penetrating hit and wrecking it. the five choas space marines that were inside get out right in front of the ultramarines.

according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

If this is the case i will play my angels and my land raider with death company in it and it will be the most feared thing on the planet. I WILL ABUSE THIS IF THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS. do you really want to deal with that?

i will drop 6 land raiders in my opponents face, each with a squad of 15 death company and a reclusiarch in it .


Automatically Appended Next Post:



I also way to say i'm sorry for my conduct yesterday. i was having an awful day. didn't mean to take it out on the forum.... i do apologize again and it won't happen again.

dufus0001 wrote:
according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

That's absolutely false. That's not what I've been saying. I've said, over and over, that you're not allowed to charge in your opponents turn.
And no - the Tac squad wouldn't be able to charge because they fired a lascannon.

rigeld2 wrote:

dufus0001 wrote:
according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

That's absolutely false. That's not what I've been saying. I've said, over and over, that you're not allowed to charge in your opponents turn.
And no - the Tac squad wouldn't be able to charge because they fired a lascannon.

alright, maybe bad example but i think you know what i'm getting at. rigeld, i agree with you i assure you. i just want to see what the OP has to say about it.

the lascannon shot could have come from a predator. doesn't really matter. if the tac squad is 6" from the land raider when it blows up, according to the way the OP thinks it RAW, they both can overwatch and get the bonuses for charging.

what happens if unit inside has counter attack as well? +2 attacks for charging and being charged at the same time? SWEET!

dufus0001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

dufus0001 wrote:
according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

That's absolutely false. That's not what I've been saying. I've said, over and over, that you're not allowed to charge in your opponents turn.
And no - the Tac squad wouldn't be able to charge because they fired a lascannon.

alright, maybe bad example but i think you know what i'm getting at. rigeld, i agree with you i assure you. i just want to see what the OP has to say about it.

the lascannon shot could have come from a predator. doesn't really matter. if the tac squad is 6" from the land raider when it blows up, according to the way the OP thinks it RAW, they both can overwatch and get the bonuses for charging.

what happens if unit inside has counter attack as well? +2 attacks for charging and being charged at the same time? SWEET!

a) then quote who you're addressing. Replying immediately after I did with no other context makes it seem like you're addressing me.
b) Regardless of your example, the OP has said that is how he reads it RAW and he understands that is not RAI. Giving silly examples and saying "I'll abuse it!" is argumentative and useless. It's not how he'd play.
c) Please offer rules based arguments.

rigeld2 wrote:
a) then quote who you're addressing. Replying immediately after I did with no other context makes it seem like you're addressing me.
b) Regardless of your example, the OP has said that is how he reads it RAW and he understands that is not RAI. Giving silly examples and saying "I'll abuse it!" is argumentative and useless. It's not how he'd play.
c) Please offer rules based arguments.

this is a forum, I was replying in general because I have been part of this conversation. I disagree, giving examples of how it will be abused is how you determine the whole premise of this is false. I have no effing clue what the OP is saying anymore. he's saying he doesn't agree with it yet he keeps arguing the point for arguments sake. I presented a counter argument by asking how other rules worked if the RAW or RAI or what the eff ever i'm lost at that point, would work because they simply don't work if you're allowed to charge on you're opponent's turn.

am i allowed to want to know this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't think you and I should be arguing, we're on the same side of the argument. How about playing along with what I think the OP was bringing up about charging out of an assault vehicle on your opponent's turn? try to think of ways to use it that interact with other rules that bring up questions. use your mistakes against them.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're blown out you do not get to assault in your assault phase.
AV rule allows you to assault during the turn you disembarked - being blown out would be your opponents assault phase.
Normal disembarking rules say that you cannot assault during "their next assault phase". That'd be during your turn - not the same turn AV lifts the restriction.

Absolutely agreed RAW. Doubt that is RAI myself, especially as I see the same reading of RAW givning permission to charge in the opponents turn (I know you don't see that).

rigeld2 wrote:Not true whatsoever. The AV rules override specific disembarking rules - they're very clear about what is allowed and what isn't.

Agreed again.

WAT?!

I agree the AV rules over ride certain bits of the disembarking rules and that RAW you can't charge the turn after you are wrecked. The fact that we parse the overriding sentence differently doesn't mean we have to disagree there.

rigeld2 wrote:
edit: So you're still thinking that the latter part of the sentence is considered separately from the first part?
Why? What basis do you have for that? It's not adding additional permission, it's clarifying the permission the AV rule is already granting.
You can tell because there's a comma so it's all part of the same sentence.

No, I think it is considered as a whole sentence, thus giving you permission to charge in your opponents turn. I can't see how we get to your interpretation without considering them separately, obviously you can see how you get there. This is where we fundamentally disagree.

dufus0001 wrote:ill give you a scenario and you tell me how this works out.

an ultramarine tactical squad is 6" from a chaos land raider. the tactical squad shoots its lascannon at the land raider scoring a penetrating hit and wrecking it. the five choas space marines that were inside get out right in front of the ultramarines.

according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

If this is the case i will play my angels and my land raider with death company in it and it will be the most feared thing on the planet. I WILL ABUSE THIS IF THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS. do you really want to deal with that?

i will drop 6 land raiders in my opponents face, each with a squad of 15 death company and a reclusiarch in it .

Yep that appears to be RAW. It is also RAW that your DC can't charge in your own following turn, do you agree with that part of the RAW taken separately (as rigeld does)?

dufus0001 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

I also way to say i'm sorry for my conduct yesterday. i was having an awful day. didn't mean to take it out on the forum.... i do apologize again and it won't happen again.

Apology accepted, thankyou.

dufus0001 wrote:
this is a forum, I was replying in general because I have been part of this conversation. I disagree, giving examples of how it will be abused is how you determine the whole premise of this is false.

This is not how you determine if something is false or true. It is how you determine if it is good or bad, they are different.

dufus0001 wrote:I have no effing clue what the OP is saying anymore. he's saying he doesn't agree with it yet he keeps arguing the point for arguments sake. I presented a counter argument by asking how other rules worked if the RAW or RAI or what the eff ever i'm lost at that point, would work because they simply don't work if you're allowed to charge on you're opponent's turn.

am i allowed to want to know this?

Charges are declared one at a time, the player whose turn it is gets to decide which order they are resolved in. Therefore the tac squad would get to declare its charge, the DC overwatch. If the DC are not in combat and the Tac squad is still alive then they can charge and Tac can overwatch, simple. Even if it wasn't is irrelevant to RAW.

Again I ask, in your opinion would the DC be able to charge on your turn after the LR gets wrecked by your opponent?

The crux of this is that I read taht you can assault on your opponents turn, but NOT on your own following. I think this is silly. I therefore play that you can charge in your own next assault phase as that seems both fair and not mental. This is a house rule though, clearly, and rigeld (among others) does not see it the same way.

Drager wrote:
Charges are declared one at a time, the player whose turn it is gets to decide which order they are resolved in. Therefore the tac squad would get to declare its charge, the DC overwatch. If the DC are not in combat and the Tac squad is still alive then they can charge and Tac can overwatch, simple. Even if it wasn't is irrelevant to RAW.

Please specify this in the BRB. As far as I can see there are nothing about choosing who declares the charge first in the assault phase. I believe you are assuming this.

Drager wrote:
Again I ask, in your opinion would the DC be able to charge on your turn after the LR gets wrecked by your opponent?

The crux of this is that I read taht you can assault on your opponents turn, but NOT on your own following. I think this is silly. I therefore play that you can charge in your own next assault phase as that seems both fair and not mental. This is a house rule though, clearly, and rigeld (among others does not see it the same way

Yes, you can assault on your turn. You started the turn outside the vehicle therefore you follow normal moving and assaulting rules. If you want to read it like that, disembarking restrictions apply to ALL subsequent turns.

Drager 471991 4710903 nul wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
edit: So you're still thinking that the latter part of the sentence is considered separately from the first part?
Why? What basis do you have for that? It's not adding additional permission, it's clarifying the permission the AV rule is already granting.
You can tell because there's a comma so it's all part of the same sentence.

No, I think it is considered as a whole sentence, thus giving you permission to charge in your opponents turn. I can't see how we get to your interpretation without considering them separately, obviously you can see how you get there. This is where we fundamentally disagree.

It's considered as a whole sentence even though it's a comma separated clause?
I guess I'm not understanding you. Looking at the second half of the sentence as applying to anything other than overriding the disembark rules doesn't make sense.

It's not clear at all really... either side can be proven with RAW. GW needs to come out with a FAQ. Until then I'm playing it no assaulting in opponent's assault phase.

Purely based on that being silly to me.

The rule clearly does not allow assaulting during the opponents phase even RAW.

Warptide wrote:
It's not clear at all really... either side can be proven with RAW. GW needs to come out with a FAQ. Until then I'm playing it no assaulting in opponent's assault phase.

Purely based on that being silly to me.

You cannot prove that you have permission to assault in your opponents assault phase.
You can prove that you have permission to assault after disembarking, even in your opponents assault phase but that's a different thing.

rigeld2 wrote:

WAT?!

edit: So you're still thinking that the latter part of the sentence is considered separately from the first part?
Why? What basis do you have for that? It's not adding additional permission, it's clarifying the permission the AV rule is already granting.
You can tell because there's a comma so it's all part of the same sentence.

I can answer my basis for it.

Basis 1. Unlike in 5th ed, passengers now disembark under all circumstances, no longer neccessary to clarify permission. (Even then the clarification would have been wrong, since without the entry on pg. 426, passengers would not disembark on an explodes result). This is why the second part of the rule is no longer needed.

Basis 2. Under the player turn sequence, every phase is listed as "your models move" "your models shoot." However, at assaults it says "models..." as mentions it's specifically different since both sides now participate in assaults.

Basis 3. Charge is not an action, but now a sub-phase of assaults. Units that can charge, see the charge sub phase, where step 1 is to declare the charge. Therefore, a unit that is granted charge, is now granted the ability to declare a charge.

Basis 4. AV rule is a rule for giving units enbarked in vehicles permission to charge after disembarking. Not permission to disembark, permission to assault after disembarking from the vehicle, and lays out the circumstances when they can. those circumstances being when they disembark from the vehicle, even on a turn the vehicle explodes. Summary: AV tells units when they may charge.

now that you are allowed to charge after you get out of the vehicle, And player turn sequence no longer specifies which side specifically operates an assault in a player turn, a charging model may go to the charge sub-phase and declare a charge under the charge sup-phase steps.

Paitryn wrote:
Basis 1. Unlike in 5th ed, passengers now disembark under all circumstances, no longer neccessary to clarify permission. (Even then the clarification would have been wrong, since without the entry on pg. 426, passengers would not disembark on an explodes result). This is why the second part of the rule is no longer needed.

"second part" being the "even on the turn the vehicle was destroyed"?
That part is there so that you're aware that even with the vehicle destroyed there's a lasting effect allowing the assault. That wasn't the case in 5th - if you disembarked and your vehicle was destroyed (for example, by a scattered blast marker) you could not benefit from the Assault Vehicle rules, meaning you could not assault (assuming the vehicle moved).

Basis 2. Under the player turn sequence, every phase is listed as "your models move" "your models shoot." However, at assaults it says "models..." as mentions it's specifically different since both sides now participate in assaults.

Page 20. "It's time for your warriors" "First,pick one of your units" "Once this has been done, you can either choose to declare a charge with another unit, or proceed to the Fight sub-phase."

Basis 3. Charge is not an action, but now a sub-phase of assaults. Units that can charge, see the charge sub phase, where step 1 is to declare the charge. Therefore, a unit that is granted charge, is now granted the ability to declare a charge.

You're misrepresenting step 1. The player whose turn it is picks a unit and declares a charge. Once he's done resolving charges he can decide to move to the Fight sub-phase. Where is the permission for the player who is not in control of the turn to declare a charge? Cite the rule please.

Basis 4. AV rule is a rule for giving units enbarked in vehicles permission to charge after disembarking. Not permission to disembark, permission to assault after disembarking from the vehicle, and lays out the circumstances when they can. those circumstances being when they disembark from the vehicle, even on a turn the vehicle explodes. Summary: AV tells units when they may charge.

AV overrides the basic disembark restriction. We know that because it says "Passengers disembarking from ..."

now that you are allowed to charge after you get out of the vehicle,

Agreed.

And player turn sequence no longer specifies which side specifically operates an assault in a player turn,

False, as shown above.

a charging model may go to the charge sub-phase and declare a charge under the charge sup-phase steps.

During the owning player's turn, yes. Not during the opponents turn as the opponent has no permission to ever declare a charge during your phase.

Your basis 2 and 3 are false, rendering your entire conclusion unsupported by rules.

Drager wrote:

dufus0001 wrote:ill give you a scenario and you tell me how this works out.

an ultramarine tactical squad is 6" from a chaos land raider. the tactical squad shoots its lascannon at the land raider scoring a penetrating hit and wrecking it. the five choas space marines that were inside get out right in front of the ultramarines.

according to you, you both are allowed to charge each other. who overwatches? who gets the +1 attack for charging? both? surely exiting an assault vehicle on your opponents turn doesn't basically grant you counter attack. so they both overwatch, AND get the +1 attack for charging? this means i get the bonuses for furious charge as well if i have it.

If this is the case i will play my angels and my land raider with death company in it and it will be the most feared thing on the planet. I WILL ABUSE THIS IF THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS. do you really want to deal with that?

i will drop 6 land raiders in my opponents face, each with a squad of 15 death company and a reclusiarch in it .

Yep that appears to be RAW. It is also RAW that your DC can't charge in your own following turn, do you agree with that part of the RAW taken separately?

Are you crazy? Are you actually advocating that the game should be played this way? That both units should be allowed to charge each other during the same player turn? Who moves first, the active player or the passive player?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Again I ask, in your opinion would the DC be able to charge on your turn after the LR gets wrecked by your opponent?

The crux of this is that I read taht you can assault on your opponents turn, but NOT on your own following. I think this is silly. I therefore play that you can charge in your own next assault phase as that seems both fair and not mental. This is a house rule though, clearly, and rigeld (among others) does not see it the same way.

Ok...I think I get it now. You're making this argument with the express intention to show that RAW is broken because you think that the passengers of the destroyed assault vehicle should be allowed to assault on their next turn - even though strict RAW seems to say they can't. Am I correct in this? You're playing Devil's Advocate?

Is there anyone on this forum who DOESN'T think this should be FAQ'd? Personally, I think the way it should be played is that passengers from wrecked assault vehicle should be allowed to assault in their own subsequent assault phase. Unfortunately, RAW has turned it into a fustercluck.

 Grugknuckle wrote:


Ok...I think I get it now. You're making this argument with the express intention to show that RAW is broken because you think that the passengers of the destroyed assault vehicle should be allowed to assault on their next turn - even though strict RAW seems to say they can't. Am I correct in this? You're playing Devil's Advocate?

That's my take on the whole thread. Essentially, strict RAW would break the game and/or be stupid, thus, needs a FAQ to clear matters up. I would like to see a poll on how others play this. We've house ruled on it as well to allow assault vehicles' passengers to assault the following turn, not the turn they're forcefully removed from their ride.

ThePhish wrote:
That's my take on the whole thread. Essentially, strict RAW would break the game and/or be stupid, thus, needs a FAQ to clear matters up.

Except not one single person has been able to show that "strict RAW" actually breaks the game.
Every attempt has failed because there's no permission to assault in your opponents turn in the first place, disembarking or not.

rigeld2 wrote:

Except not one single person has been able to show that "strict RAW" actually breaks the game.
Every attempt has failed because there's no permission to assault in your opponents turn in the first place, disembarking or not.

Well I think what he means by "broken game" depends on whose side of RAW you take.

If we side with rigeld2 , then the game still plays fine except for the bummer that being an assault vehicle doesn't let your passengers assault on your turn if the vehicle dies in your opponents turn. At least, I think that's a bummer. But anyway, this doesn't break the game at all, it just makes the assault vehicle rule not as good.

On the other hand, Drager - who I think is playing the Devil's Advocate : he doesn't really think the game should be played this way, but please correct me if I'm mistaken - Drager is trying to make an RAW argument that if your assault vehicle gets destroyed during your opponents shooting phase, then your passengers may assault during your opponents assault phase. This is imbecility. The rules do not support, have never supported, and likely will never support the passive player initiating a charge in his opponents turn. But just for the sake of argument, lets suppose they did. Consider how many more rules would become "broken" as a consequence. You would pretty much have to re-write the entire section on assaults. And I think THAT is what Phish means by "breaks the game".

 Grugknuckle wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Except not one single person has been able to show that "strict RAW" actually breaks the game.
Every attempt has failed because there's no permission to assault in your opponents turn in the first place, disembarking or not.

Well I think what he means by "broken game" depends on whose side of RAW you take.

If we side with rigeld2 , then the game still plays fine except for the bummer that being an assault vehicle doesn't let your passengers assault on your turn if the vehicle dies in your opponents turn. At least, I think that's a bummer. But anyway, this doesn't break the game at all, it just makes the assault vehicle rule not as good.

On the other hand, Drager - who I think is playing the Devil's Advocate : he doesn't really think the game should be played this way, but please correct me if I'm mistaken - Drager is trying to make an RAW argument that if your assault vehicle gets destroyed during your opponents shooting phase, then your passengers may assault during your opponents assault phase. This is imbecility. The rules do not support, have never supported, and likely will never support the passive player initiating a charge in his opponents turn. But just for the sake of argument, lets suppose they did. Consider how many more rules would become "broken" as a consequence. You would pretty much have to re-write the entire section on assaults. And I think THAT is what Phish means by "breaks the game".

Nice summary. Yes.

@rigeld2 I'm also of the opinion that, RAW, the Assault vehicle "special" rule allows assaulting in the opponents turn if the passengers disembark in my opponents turn.

The rule :
Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so, even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed

"Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge" - To me, this grants permission to charge.
"on the turn they do so" - turn, as described earlier in the book defines a player turn. So any player turn since it does not specify the player who's turn it is, or my subsequent turn. No specificity.
", even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed" - "Even" Reemphasizes that the rule "Even" works on the "player turn" that the vehicle was destroyed. Again, nothing specifying who's player turn it's destroyed on, therefore means both/either player's turn.

The rule itself is the permission you're looking for. The assault vehicle special rule grants permissions above and beyond the standard vehicle rules. There is nothing that prevents it, b/c the special rule trumps the standard rules, otherwise, there would be no point to having a special rule. This is how I understand it.

As others have mentioned, I don't play it this way, b/c I think in it's current state, with no FAQ, and in conjunction with the other badly written 'wrecked', 'explodes', 'disembark' rules, it breaks the game, or at least the flow of the game. Granted, I'm loath to change the method I've been using for the last few years in 5th, and I'm stuck in a rut of trying to play the same way that I did in 5th in some aspects, but it's 6th edition now. Things have changed

As for the question earlier about 2 units, capable of assaulting each other due to the assault vehicle rule. The player who's turn it is chooses the order that the assaults are performed. It might benefit the player who's turn it is to make the opponent perform his charge first and you be able to overwatch in your own assault phase and try to win out in your opponents phase. If in front of 2 squads, you could make them charge, overwatch with one squad and then charge your 2nd squad in. You would be trading their overwatch for your +1 attack for the assault, but depending on the units involved, it might be worth it.

ThePhish wrote:
"Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge" - To me, this grants permission to charge.

Grants permission to charge overriding the normal disembarking restriction.

"on the turn they do so" - turn, as described earlier in the book defines a player turn. So any player turn since it does not specify the player who's turn it is, or my subsequent turn. No specificity.
", even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed" - "Even" Reemphasizes that the rule "Even" works on the "player turn" that the vehicle was destroyed.

100% correct. When you disembark, you can assault on that turn despite the fact that you just disembarked. You may do this even if the vehicle is destroyed - without that permission the ability to assault would disappear if the vehicle is destroyed.

The rule itself is the permission you're looking for. The assault vehicle special rule grants permissions above and beyond the standard vehicle rules. There is nothing that prevents it, b/c the special rule trumps the standard rules, otherwise, there would be no point to having a special rule. This is how I understand it.

Yes, the special rule trumps the standard rule. The standard rule is that if you disembark you may not assault. AV trumps that.

There's nothing written in AV given you permission to act during your opponents turn. You are never given permission to declare an assault during your opponents turn.
You're allowed to declare an assault despite having disembarked. Now - find permission to declare an assault when it's not your turn. Cite a rule please. I'll wait.

rigeld2 wrote:

"on the turn they do so" - turn, as described earlier in the book defines a player turn. So any player turn since it does not specify the player who's turn it is, or my subsequent turn. No specificity.
", even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed" - "Even" Reemphasizes that the rule "Even" works on the "player turn" that the vehicle was destroyed.

100% correct. When you disembark, you can assault on that turn despite the fact that you just disembarked. You may do this even if the vehicle is destroyed - without that permission the ability to assault would disappear if the vehicle is destroyed.

Exactly. "the turn" it's destroyed. The turn can be either the controlling player, or the opponent's turn. The rule does not specify. We are given specific instruction on the use of the word "turn" on pg.9. Turn = player turn. This is the sticking point that the entire debate is revolving around.

There's nothing written in AV given you permission to act during your opponents turn. You are never given permission to declare an assault during your opponents turn.
You're allowed to declare an assault despite having disembarked. Now - find permission to declare an assault when it's not your turn. Cite a rule please. I'll wait.

I'm going to use your exact words to answer this so you see where I and the op are coming from. We're saying the exact same things over and over and seeing it differently.
"When you disembark, you can assault on that turn despite the fact that you just disembarked. You may do this even if the vehicle is destroyed."
100% correct, by raw. Regardless of which player's turn it is b/c the AV rule says that they may charge on the "turn = player turn" it's destroyed. The entire argument is on when, and we're told "turn". turn = player turn. That simple.

This is why I think it needs FAQ'd.