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.

Obviously the FAQ is referring to instances where a unit emergency disembarks from a destroyed transport and doesn't gain the benefit of units disembarking via assault ramps being able to assault. If they disembarked prior to its destruction, a normal disembarkation using the assault ramps, when they were fine and dandy, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to charge.

Yeh I agree faust, the only requirement of the special rule is that the unit has disembarked form a land raider that turn. No other ongoing association is required.

I guess it is more of an attribute of the vehicle rather than a special ability if you know what I mean.

Magpie wrote:Yeh I agree faust, the only requirement of the special rule is that the unit has disembarked form a land raider that turn. No other ongoing association is required.

I guess it is more of an attribute of the vehicle rather than a special ability if you know what I mean.

False. The example refers to an emergency disembarkation. The answer to the question is an unequivocal yes.
Pretending it only means emergency disembarks because that's what the example shows is like saying you can only add 1 and 1 to get 2 because that's the example used to show addition.

Edit: and Assault Vehicle is absolutely a special rule pertaining to Land Raiders.

Settle down petal we are all pretty much in agreement as to how the FAQ applies to the rule, just don't think it is very sensible that's all.

Magpie wrote:Settle down petal we are all pretty much in agreement as to how the FAQ applies to the rule, just don't think it is very sensible that's all.

Indirect insults are unlikely to cause someone to have any respect for your argument - especially as you agreed with the person who was wrong in their argument, applied another incorrect argument (ongoing effect) thus appearing to not understand the difference between a rule and an exemplar of a rule.

I also don't think it holds much water to have a crack at an implied insult (which it isn't) and respond with a series of implied insults, suggesting some one is wrong in their argument when they are expressing an opinion is a far greater sin then suggesting someone chill out.

I don't agree that the cited instance is a particularly good exemplar of the ceasing of a vehicle special abilities upon its destruction, as it is open to interpretation.

I also don't think that an attribute of a vehicle should be cited as a special ability. A big door that is easy to get out of is going to be a big door that is easy to get out of regardless of the condition of the vehicle and further the unit had long since availed itself of the big door and its fate after they have gone through it is irrelevant.

This is a case where a very clear rule is being eroded by the FAQ. In the order of precedence the FAQ are subservient to the rules, indeed the option to ignore them is given by GW. That's the road I'd be taking in this instance.

Magpie wrote:I also don't think that an attribute of a vehicle should be cited as a special ability. A big door that is easy to get out of is going to be a big door that is easy to get out of regardless of the condition of the vehicle and further the unit had long since availed itself of the big door and its fate after they have gone through it is irrelevant.

Models can't assault after disembarking from a moving Land Raider just because the model has a big door on the front. They can do so because the Land Raider has a special rule that allows it. The big door on the model is just a visual representation of that special rule.

This isn't a case of an attribute of the vehicle being cited as a special ability. The Assault Vehicle rule is a special ability of the vehicle.

insaniak wrote:

Magpie wrote:I also don't think that an attribute of a vehicle should be cited as a special ability. A big door that is easy to get out of is going to be a big door that is easy to get out of regardless of the condition of the vehicle and further the unit had long since availed itself of the big door and its fate after they have gone through it is irrelevant.

Models can't assault after disembarking from a moving Land Raider just because the model has a big door on the front. They can do so because the Land Raider has a special rule that allows it. The big door on the model is just a visual representation of that special rule.

This isn't a case of an attribute of the vehicle being cited as a special ability. The Assault Vehicle rule is a special ability of the vehicle.

I accept what the rule is if you choose to accept the FAQ ruling, I am simply saying I don't accept the FAQ and why and I am not alone in that. No biggie.

The FAQ specifically states that the unit embarked cannot assault and does not say anything about a unit that has already disembarked. Therefor this specific FAQ does not apply.

Both sides can be easily argued due to this FAQ. However, I'm going to have to side on the squad can assault since it met the criteria for assaulting prior to the destruction of the vehicle and the rule then applies to the squad as soon as the squad disembarks, NOT when it assaults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, I do agree that assault granades do not apply because granades are used during the assault phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I want to change my answer, RAW, they cannot assault, but I think it's stupid for the record.

Sothas wrote:The FAQ specifically states that the unit embarked cannot assault and does not say anything about a unit that has already disembarked. Therefor this specific FAQ does not apply.

The FAQ only refers to embarked units specifically in the example. An example is not an exhaustive list... it's just an example.

The actual FAQ response is a blanket answer.

... and the rule then applies to the squad as soon as the squad disembarks, NOT when it assaults.

Why would you attempt to ascertain whether or not the squad can assault at any point other than the start of the assault phase when you are supposed to ascertain whether or not your units can assault?

Sothas wrote:Actually I want to change my answer, RAW, they cannot assault, but I think it's stupid for the record.

I'd say that RAW they can assault FAQ they can't

The FAQ doesn't change the RAW, it just clarifies what it means.

Magpie wrote:

Sothas wrote:Actually I want to change my answer, RAW, they cannot assault, but I think it's stupid for the record.

I'd say that RAW they can assault FAQ they can't

No, RAW they cannot assualt, because RAW the special rule no longer applies. Its actually consistent with other rules on when you determine if a special rule applies or not - so youre not only ignoring the rules, but doing so from an inconsistent opinion.

Oh, and they werent implied insults - i was pointing out that getting upset that someone was correcting your given argument by saying that you didnt actually mean the given argument is a fairly detrimental way to argue. Or, in other words, realise that we can only derive your meaning from what you actually write, your intent is fairly difficult to determine without being mind readers!

Which RAW says the special rule no longer applies, I can't find one?

When you come to Assault, please find the special rule that allows you to assault despte having disembarked from a non-open topped vehicle that moved.

Oh wait, the vehicle no longer exists, meaning its special rule no longer exists.

Same as any other special rule. Oh, and if you claim otherwise, guess how strong Sanguinary priests just got.

OK so there is no actual rule then?

Magpie wrote:OK so there is no actual rule then?

No. Which is exactly the point. RAW, they can't assault, because at the time you declare your assaults there is no special rule in play that would allow them to.


You shouldn't really need a rule that specifically says that a model's special rule no longer applies when it is destroyed, any more than you need a rule stating that a model can no longer fire a weapon in the shooting phase after it has been killed.

insaniak wrote:

Magpie wrote:OK so there is no actual rule then?

No. Which is exactly the point. RAW, they can't assault, because at the time you declare your assaults there is no special rule in play that would allow them to.


You shouldn't really need a rule that specifically says that a model's special rule no longer applies when it is destroyed, any more than you need a rule stating that a model can no longer fire a weapon in the shooting phase after it has been killed.

But an IC can still be attached to a fleeing unit after the unit is destroyed ?

Thing is the firing of the weapon is trying to shoot bullet out of something that is no longer there, Assaulting after disembarking you're already out so any effect the vehicle was giving you has been used prior to its demise.

Only until after he makes his fallback move, then you check to see that he is no longer in coherency (though one could argue that since in order to regroup you must check coherency first, you can get around this) and can thus test to regroup (maybe).

Magpie wrote:But an IC can still be attached to a fleeing unit after the unit is destroyed ?

I don't think so, no. And the fact that you would bring that up in response to a post of mine suggests that you weren't actually reading that particular thread very closely.

Thing is the firing of the weapon is trying to shoot bullet out of something that is no longer there, Assaulting after disembarking you're already out so any effect the vehicle was giving you has been used prior to its demise.

Only if the assault phase happens before its demise.

You don't declare assaults until the assault phase. So something that affects your ability to assault likewise doesn't apply until the assault phase.

insaniak wrote:

Magpie wrote:But an IC can still be attached to a fleeing unit after the unit is destroyed ?

I don't think so, no. And the fact that you would bring that up in response to a post of mine suggests that you weren't actually reading that particular thread very closely..

Sorry I thought you were saying that as you can't check coherency until the end of the movement phase the IC is still considered part of the unit and therefore still attached to it.

insaniak wrote:

Thing is the firing of the weapon is trying to shoot bullet out of something that is no longer there, Assaulting after disembarking you're already out so any effect the vehicle was giving you has been used prior to its demise.

Only if the assault phase happens before its demise.

You don't declare assaults until the assault phase. So something that affects your ability to assault likewise doesn't apply until the assault phase.

Thing is tho' it removes the effect of the movement phase so it is nullifying the actions that took place before the assault phase.

Magpie wrote:OK so there is no actual rule then?

Yes, the absence of a rule allowing them to assault is correct. That means they can't assault.

I also find it amusing (since you're bringing up other threads) that someone that thinks LOS sniping still works is trying to say that some very clear RAW are "open to interpretation" and "ignore the FAQ".

rigeld2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:OK so there is no actual rule then?

Yes, the absence of a rule allowing them to assault is correct. That means they can't assault.

I also find it amusing (since you're bringing up other threads) that someone that thinks LOS sniping still works is trying to say that some very clear RAW are "open to interpretation" and "ignore the FAQ".

Fixed the LOS sniping thing mate, bad edit.

The RAW is very clear it says any unit that disembarks from a land raider can assault, without any qualification. I was asking if there was a RAW that says that the rule would no longer apply once the unit had carried out its end of the bargain and the vehicle had gone on its merry way. There doesn't seem to be one, I was genuinely asking so I could check I wasn't missing something.

The FAQ by its own admission is a "House Rule" set which we are free to accept or reject.

Magpie wrote:The FAQ by its own admission is a "House Rule" set which we are free to accept or reject.

The FAQs aren't rules at all. They're a clarification as to how the studio interprets the rules they themselves wrote.

For the sake of discussion on these boards, they're accepted as the 'official' word on how the rules are supposed to work, because the vast majority of gamers accept them as such, and being the closest we're going to get to official answers on rules issues it would be rather pointless to ignore them.


On consideration, this thread has probably outlived its lifespan. People are free to make up their own minds as to whether or not the FAQ is broad enough to cover this specific situation, on the very rare chance that it ever actually comes up at the table. But since the discussion seems to have moved on to how the rules should be interpreted if we pretend the FAQ doesn't exist, I think we can put this one to bed.