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.

Paitryn wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Hey Paitryn--here's how it flows;

I'm aware of that scenario (one I have yet to see even occur- you only lose one HP for getting immobilized), but thats just one interpretation. It simply states that on a turn the vehicle is destroyed i can charge. that also includes opposing turns. again wording is unnecessary, but its there to argue about.

Yes, on a turn you disembark because the vehicle was destroyed you can assault. See how that o ly works with the disembark rules?
See how it never mentions the opposing players turn?

Paitryn wrote:

Even on the turn the vehicle is destroyed: Huh? I cant charge the turn the vehicle is destroyed normally because its my opposing players turn, how does this apply? It just gave me permission to do something I could not do under normal rules circumstance.

It could imply immobilized from difficult terrain, sure, but 1 hp loss is

To charge something, you must declare a charge. You can only do this during your Charge Sub-Phase--which is on your turn.

Regarding losing a vehicle during your turn;
A skimmer that moves Flat Out and fails a test doesn't lose a HP--it immediately becomes a wreck.
You could ram and lose your vehicle.
You could scatter and kill your own vehicle.
Imo's lightning could go off and kill your own (allied) vehicle


That's just off the top of my head--I'm sure there are other examples. I'm not sure how far you will get telling your opponent you get a unique, on their turn Charge Sub-Phase after they blow up your vehicle on their turn---you might want to let them know you plan on doing that before you guys setup .

rigeld2 wrote:
You're attempting to override 2 restrictions on assaulting (not your turn, disembarking) with one sentence that doesn't spell that out.

They included that phrase as a specific change from 5th edition where if your assault vehicle popped you could not assault.

Again, Assault Vehicle only ever deals with removing the disembark restriction and never addresses the fact that you are not given permission to declare an assault in your opponents turn.

Again, how does it not spell it out? you can charge on the turn your vehicle explodes spells that out completely. I understand RAI (change from 5th) but this isnt an RAI discussion. its about how it is interpreted as RAW. It expressed charging in my opponents turn. (turn=player turn, destroyed= opponents turn. so in the player turn my vehicle is destroyed, i disembark and can charge)

so lets break it down:

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

this overrides the first restriction, with the disembarking rules (stating that you disembark from exploding vehicles) this is all that is needed.

even
on a turn that the vehicle was destroved.

Now we get to override two. vehicles can be destroyed in both player turns.

the rule gives you permission to assault after disembarking = true.

the rule gives you permission to assault after the vehicle is destroyed = true.

no other specifications exist. It simply grants permission to assault after the vehicle is destroyed in that specific turn. The rule lays down expressed circumstances in which a player may assault.

You're absolutely incorrect. "this is all that is needed".
Without the final clause you keep getting hung up on the unit would not be able to assault if the vehicle was destroyed on their turn.
The final clause only ever modifies what came before it - the permission to assault after disembarking.

Paitryn - find permission to declare a charge on your opponents turn Cant find it? You cannot charge

rigeld I would love to see you backup your claim that there is a restriction on declaring a charge in the enemies assault phase, because I can't find any such restrictive statement.

Please, show me a rules quote that specifically says "no assaulting in the enemy assault phase"

 Drunkspleen wrote:
rigeld I would love to see you backup your claim that there is a restriction on declaring a charge in the enemies assault phase, because I can't find any such restrictive statement.

Please, show me a rules quote that specifically says "no assaulting in the enemy assault phase"

There doesn't need to be one that specifically says that.
The only player that has permission to declare charges in his assault phase is the current player.
Therefore you need permission to make that assault in your opponents assault phase.

 Drunkspleen wrote:
rigeld I would love to see you backup your claim that there is a restriction on declaring a charge in the enemies assault phase, because I can't find any such restrictive statement.

Please, show me a rules quote that specifically says "no assaulting in the enemy assault phase"

There isnt a restriction, apart from the lack of permission to declare one. It is, by nature of the ruleset, restricted from occurring as it has no permission to occur

There does not need to be a rule saying you cannot assault in the enemy assault phase. There needs to be a rule saying you can assault in the enemy assault phase.

That permission exists though, it's the Assault Vehicle rule, that says you may assault in the same turn you disembark, if you disembark in your enemies turn, then you can assault in your enemies turn.

You all realize that this only happens if the vehicle is destroyed. If you cannot assault if the vehicle isn't destroyed, then what makes you think you can just because it got wrecked?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
That permission exists though, it's the Assault Vehicle rule, that says you may assault in the same turn you disembark, if you disembark in your enemies turn, then you can assault in your enemies turn.

Oh, so if they disembark in your enemies turn, that means they can move and shoot normally too, right? Bollocks

dufus0001 wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
That permission exists though, it's the Assault Vehicle rule, that says you may assault in the same turn you disembark, if you disembark in your enemies turn, then you can assault in your enemies turn.

Oh, so if they disembark in your enemies turn, that means they can move and shoot normally too, right? Bollocks

No, because they are only given permission to shoot in "their subsequent shooting phase" which is not the enemies shooting phase and are not given permission to move, they are given permission to assault in the enemies turn though.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

dufus0001 wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
That permission exists though, it's the Assault Vehicle rule, that says you may assault in the same turn you disembark, if you disembark in your enemies turn, then you can assault in your enemies turn.

Oh, so if they disembark in your enemies turn, that means they can move and shoot normally too, right? Bollocks

No, because they are only given permission to shoot in "their subsequent shooting phase" which is not the enemies shooting phase and are not given permission to move, they are given permission to assault in the enemies turn though.

Really? You haven't proven that. You're misreading a sentence that allows assault after disembarking, but haven't once shown a rule that gives permission to assault during the enemy turn.

This is a joke right? People are trying to advocate charging in the enemy turn? This is most pathetic excuse of rules lawyering I've ever seen. If ye need to pull stunts like this to win people, maybe this isn't the game for you.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
This is a joke right? People are trying to advocate charging in the enemy turn? This is most pathetic excuse of rules lawyering I've ever seen. If ye need to pull stunts like this to win people, maybe this isn't the game for you.

Perhaps you should read the thread instead of throwing accusations like and making assumptions.

No one is arguing that's how it's played or should be played. Some think that it says that RAW but is obviously not RAI and they would not play that way.

If you don't like reading RAW debates, perhaps you should stay out of YMDC?

Its not permission to charge on another players turn Paitryn, its permission to charge if the vehicle is blown up.

What about the rest of what I said? If the assault ramp allows you to charge in your opponents assault phase if vehicle blows up, surely this allows you to charge even if the vehicle stays in tact, right?

dufus0001 wrote:
What about the rest of what I said? If the assault ramp allows you to charge in your opponents assault phase if vehicle blows up, surely this allows you to charge even if the vehicle stays in tact, right?

Only if you can disembark. Which you can only do by destruction in the opponents turn.

The comments about a separate requirement to be able to declare a charge confuse me. On page 20-22 the charge sub-phase is described. Everything in that sub-phase constitutes charging. It doesn't say you have permission to make a charge move it says you have permission to charge, that is all the steps involved in charging. That's what charge means. If you disagree, please let me know where your definition of charge comes from, I might have missed it.

The vehicle being destroyed is not the condition and/or permission that allows you to charge in your opponent's turn. It just lets you assault DURING YOUR TURN if the vehicle should so happen to wreck.

Alright, let's look at it this way. The vehicle is shot at, wrecks, they take a pinning test, fail, and go to ground. According to you, they can still assault because the assault ramp would over rule the go to ground rule.

"After disembarking, models can shoot counting as having moved, or choose to run in their subsequent Shooting Phase, but cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase"

There's your proof. Go ahead and shoot after you disembark on your opponents turn as well. This applies to NON assault vehicles as well!

dufus0001 wrote:
The vehicle being destroyed is not the condition and/or permission that allows you to charge in your opponent's turn. It just lets you assault DURING YOUR TURN if the vehicle should so happen to wreck.

RAI, probably. RAW it does not say during your turn. That is not the wording.You're right the vehicle being destroyed is not, disembarking from it (which happens as a consequence of destruction) is.

dufus0001 wrote:
Alright, let's look at it this way. The vehicle is shot at, wrecks, they take a pinning test, fail, and go to ground. According to you, they can still assault because the assault ramp would over rule the go to ground rule.

Can't overrides may, so if pinned they can't charge.

dufus0001 wrote:
"After disembarking, models can shoot counting as having moved, or choose to run in their subsequent Shooting Phase, but cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase"

This rule specifically calls out their subsequent Shooting phase and their subsequent Assault phase. This makes it refer to their turn only, not the opponents. The assault vehicle rule says the, not their, as such it refers to whatever turn it happens in.

dufus0001 wrote:
There's your proof. Go ahead and shoot after you disembark on your opponents turn as well. This applies to NON assault vehicles as well!

No it doesn't for the reasons I just presented.

I agree with everyone that assaulting on the opponents turn is not RAI, nor is it HIWPI. The main reason I started this thread is because I was seeing alot of people claiming that RAW assault vehicles don't allow you to assault on the turn after they wreck (and this does appear to be the case RAW), however following that argument leads to the ridiculous situation of charging on the opponents turn. So which is it? Do Assault vehicles allow you to charge on the opponents turn but NOT your own following turn (as RAW implies) or do they allow you to charge on your own turn, but NOT your opponents (as I think RAI is, and indeed is HIWPI) or do they not allow you to charge on either or on both (can't see any good argumetns for either of these two positions).

The restrictions are applied to running during their next shooting phase, and charging during their next assault phase. According to RAW, as soon as you disembark, you may shoot counting as have moved. It does not specify which turn they may shoot in, so go ahead an shoot as soon as you disembark.

I am about to start name calling if you do not stop. Why do you argue a point you do not agree with and more specifically, think is wrong? You do not how to do it correctly regardless.

dufus0001 wrote:
I am about to start name calling if you do not stop.

Please don't. It's never warranted.

The OP seems to claim "There is nothing that says you cannot do this" and when I point out a situation where THE EXACT SAME THING can happen, it's wrong. So if my example of poor wording is wrong, but his example of poor wording is correct.

See my thread on 40k Discussion: Donkey Holes


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

I think everyone has established that--at the very least--the rule is not coherent with RAW vs. likely RAI. Unfortunately, given GW's history of poorly articulating rules, this is a common impasse. So--it's worth a conversation with your opponent before the game on how they view the rule--and if they wish to play RAW or RAI on the nature of assault vehicles. Welcome to Dakka dufus0001 as I see you're relatively new! I wouldn't get too worked up over rules discussions--the nature of text minus body language makes posts appear more personal than they really are.

I just think that if you're going to misinterpret rules to your advantage, at least be consistent about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found it!

THE turn, not the PLAYER TURN. The turn and the player turn are two different things. Doesn't give permission for the player turn.

Ah, no , actually they are the same thing> Unless specified otherwise "turn" is synonymous with "player turn"

rigeld2 wrote:

Yes, on a turn you disembark because the vehicle was destroyed you can assault. See how that o ly works with the disembark rules?
See how it never mentions the opposing players turn?

It does mention opposing players turn actually, since the book makes a point of saying that when they use the generic 'Turn' it refers to player turn rather than game turn. The problem is conext (timing) is given in this quote by what caused the wreck. When a vehicle suffers an immobilized or something from moving, then its your turn. If the vehicle is shooting glanced, then its another players turn.

davou wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yes, on a turn you disembark because the vehicle was destroyed you can assault. See how that o ly works with the disembark rules?
See how it never mentions the opposing players turn?

It does mention opposing players turn actually, since the book makes a point of saying that when they use the generic 'Turn' it refers to player turn rather than game turn. The problem is conext (timing) is given in this quote by what caused the wreck. When a vehicle suffers an immobilized or something from moving, then its your turn. If the vehicle is shooting glanced, then its another players turn.

Right - read my quote in the context of the thread.

The context of the quote that keeps getting bandied about is to override the disembark restriction on assaulting. There is no context to assume, interpret, pray, or otherwise think that the rule is referring to general restriction of not being able to assault in your opponents assault phase.

dufus0001 wrote:The restrictions are applied to running during their next shooting phase, and charging during their next assault phase. According to RAW, as soon as you disembark, you may shoot counting as have moved. It does not specify which turn they may shoot in, so go ahead an shoot as soon as you disembark.

Ahh I think I see where we differ on that rule, you see the comma as a list break, as opposed to the comma attendant on "or". This thread isn't about that rule though and I'd rather not derail it, if you would like to follow this line of argument please start a new thread addressing that issue.

dufus0001 wrote:I am about to start name calling if you do not stop.

Threats of bullying are rarely a good debate tactic.

dufus0001 wrote:Why do you argue a point you do not agree with and more specifically, think is wrong?

I am arguing the position of RAW. I have stated what I believe RAI is and HIWPI, which is that units can charge in their own turn after the turn in which they were wrecked.

How would you play it? The same or differently? Do you disallow the charge int eh turn after a vehicle was wrecked? This is all interesting to me, as you are only addressing the RAW part of the question the only responses you have been getting are RAW. If you want to talk about RAI and HYWPI I think you will find we are in more agreement.

As to why I am arguing the RAW position I find it interesting and would like to be able to put forward the best argument I can should I need to. Such an instance would be when an opponent quite rightly points out that by RAW a unit cannot charge the turn after it was wrecked by enemy shooting, if an opponent wants to play that way I will play by the letter of RAW as well and be able to charge in their turn. Not that I often charge as I play a long range shooting army, but you see my point I hope.

dufus0001 wrote:You do not how to do it correctly regardless.

This is simply an attack upon me (unless it is a critique of my debate skills, in which case please elaborate) and as such is not an argument. This is called the ad hominem fallacy.

dufus0001 wrote:The OP seems to claim "There is nothing that says you cannot do this" and when I point out a situation where THE EXACT SAME THING can happen, it's wrong. So if my example of poor wording is wrong, but his example of poor wording is correct.

See my thread on 40k Discussion: Donkey Holes

It is not the same wording, therefore it is not the same question. This is a false equivalence fallacy.

Further my claim is that there is something that specifically says you can and no further restriction. This is different to nothing says you can't.

dufus0001 wrote:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

True. Irrelevant, but true.

dufus0001 wrote:I just think that if you're going to misinterpret rules to your advantage, at least be consistent about it.

This is another ad hominem attacking my motivation rather than my argument. It is also off base, I am not interested in an advantage. I don't even play an assault army.

dufus0001 wrote:
Found it!

THE turn, not the PLAYER TURN. The turn and the player turn are two different things. Doesn't give permission for the player turn.

Unless otherwise stated turn = player turn. Page 9, in bold.

rigeld2 wrote:

davou wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yes, on a turn you disembark because the vehicle was destroyed you can assault. See how that o ly works with the disembark rules?
See how it never mentions the opposing players turn?

It does mention opposing players turn actually, since the book makes a point of saying that when they use the generic 'Turn' it refers to player turn rather than game turn. The problem is conext (timing) is given in this quote by what caused the wreck. When a vehicle suffers an immobilized or something from moving, then its your turn. If the vehicle is shooting glanced, then its another players turn.

Right - read my quote in the context of the thread.

The context of the quote that keeps getting bandied about is to override the disembark restriction on assaulting. There is no context to assume, interpret, pray, or otherwise think that the rule is referring to general restriction of not being able to assault in your opponents assault phase.

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

Drager wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

davou wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yes, on a turn you disembark because the vehicle was destroyed you can assault. See how that o ly works with the disembark rules?
See how it never mentions the opposing players turn?

It does mention opposing players turn actually, since the book makes a point of saying that when they use the generic 'Turn' it refers to player turn rather than game turn. The problem is conext (timing) is given in this quote by what caused the wreck. When a vehicle suffers an immobilized or something from moving, then its your turn. If the vehicle is shooting glanced, then its another players turn.

Right - read my quote in the context of the thread.

The context of the quote that keeps getting bandied about is to override the disembark restriction on assaulting. There is no context to assume, interpret, pray, or otherwise think that the rule is referring to general restriction of not being able to assault in your opponents assault phase.

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.