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.

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.

You could also argue that not only does the active player decide the order in which units assault, but that he is the one who decides which units get to charge at all. Someone pointed out that in the assault rules, when deciding which units will charge you select "models" and not "your models". Does that mean I can select my opponents models and force them to charge?

Anyway...I think this discussion is completely academic because none of us actually think the game can be played this way without many many more rules clarifications. Obviously the AV rule was just poorly worded - not an uncommon occurrence for rules written by GW. I think we should just stop trying to determine if RAW allows us to charge in our opponents assault phase or not. In this special case, it doesn't matter what RAW says. No one should play it that way.

And now that I've actually said, "it doesn't matter what RAW is", you can fire up your bolt guns and cleanse me.

ThePhish wrote:
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.

You're quoting the rule wrong.

Page 33 BRB wrote:Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so, even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed.

The entire rule is one sentence, so the context of the rule is only ever addressing the restriction on assault from disembarking.
Trying to apply any permission outside that context is just wrong. Yes, if the rule was two separate sentence you might have an argument - as it is you must ignore the context of the rule and ignore the fact that you are never given permission to declare an assault during your opponents turn to get your mistaken view.

Even if you were right and that rule allowed it - read the assault phase rules. The controlling player decides when to move on from declaring and resolving assault moves to the Fight sub-phase. Which means the controlling player would have to nominate your unit to declare an assault move as you have no permission to do so.

Read the rules in context and you'll understand them much better. You're literally ignoring rules to try and make one thing break the game that really doesn't.

rigeld2 wrote:

Which means the controlling player would have to nominate your unit to declare an assault move as you have no permission to do so.

Just for giggles, let's pretend that we allowed this. Then we would be opening up a whole can of worms where I could activate ANY of my opponents units which were able to charge and force them to charge me during my assault phase. Yes please. Let's have your guardsmen which are 24" away from my 5 Heavy Bolters declare a charge and I'll overwatch and wreck them.

Read the rules in context and you'll understand them much better. You're literally ignoring rules to try and make one thing break the game that really doesn't.

Here's the thing - The rules should not be written so poorly that we even have to argue about this. The fact that they are so badly worded and so consistently is a source of unending frustration for me.

rigeld2 wrote:

ThePhish wrote:
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.

You're quoting the rule wrong.

Actually...I was quoting you...

rigeld2 wrote:
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

Your interpretation of the rule, just so happened to be my exact interpretation of the rule. The stickler still being the word "turn" and our disagreement there.

This is why I'm saying we need an FAQ, why I don't play it this way, and why we have house rules. The game isn't designed to handle it, thus breaks.

ThePhish wrote:
Actually...I was quoting you...

Regardless, you're refusing to answer the points I brought up. Please do.

This is why I'm saying we need an FAQ, why I don't play it this way, and why we have house rules. The game isn't designed to handle it, thus breaks.

You're wrong. Unless you can address the points I raised, there's no way for your interpretation to possibly be correct.
The game hasn't broken in this manner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
Here's the thing - The rules should not be written so poorly that we even have to argue about this. The fact that they are so badly worded and so consistently is a source of unending frustration for me.

They're only poorly worded if you purposely ignore context and other indications of how the rule works.
Yes, GW rights poor rules.
The only way to pretend this one is poor is to think "Well... GW normally writes unclear things, so I'll take this word out of context and pretend that this rule is unclear as well!"

The points you've raised, aside from ignoring the permission given by the assault vehicle special rule, are probably the way the rule is intended to be played.

GW ,however, gave the word "turn" significance by writing rules for how it is supposed to be interpreted. "Turn" has a rule associated with it that specifies a time within the game that certain events are supposed to happen. It cannot be ignored, regardless of RAI. The 'context' of the word is straight out of the rule book.

I agree completely that it should not be this way, but it is, until the error, if it is one, is rectified with an FAQ.

ThePhish wrote:
The points you've raised, aside from ignoring the permission given by the assault vehicle special rule, are probably the way the rule is intended to be played.

GW ,however, gave the word "turn" significance by writing rules for how it is supposed to be interpreted. "Turn" has a rule associated with it that specifies a time within the game that certain events are supposed to happen. It cannot be ignored, regardless of RAI.

I agree completely that it should not be this way, but it is, until the error, if it is one, is rectified with an FAQ.

So you're ignoring the fact that RAW you have no permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn to claim that the game is broken?

I'm not ignoring that phrase. I've acknowledged it, unlike your stance that literally requires ignoring rules. I've shown you where. Are you still going to decline to show permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn? Without such permission your interpretation cannot be the RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're ignoring the fact that RAW you have no permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn to claim that the game is broken?

I'm not ignoring that phrase. I've acknowledged it, unlike your stance that literally requires ignoring rules. I've shown you where. Are you still going to decline to show permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn? Without such permission your interpretation cannot be the RAW.

As I've already stated, the rule gives permission.

Beyond permission... there are no rules to cover it, which is where it's broken. Which is where an FAQ comes in and changes the wording to say 'in the units following turn'. It fixes the AV rule, and it fixes the crap where AV doesn't work for a wrecked or explodes result for the following turn.

ThePhish wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're ignoring the fact that RAW you have no permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn to claim that the game is broken?

I'm not ignoring that phrase. I've acknowledged it, unlike your stance that literally requires ignoring rules. I've shown you where. Are you still going to decline to show permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn? Without such permission your interpretation cannot be the RAW.

As I've already stated, the rule gives permission.

No, they don't. As I pointed out - even if you have permission to make an assault in your opponents phase, the assault phase rules require that it be the owning player that declares assaults. Find the permission to avoid that rule. And then there's the rule that the current player is the one who decides when to move on to the Fight sub-phase. Find the permission to avoid that rule.

I've asked for that before. You've failed to provide it before. Your scenario is literally impossible in the rules as written until you find that permission.

The assault vehicle rules are not broken.

Beyond permission... there are no rules to cover it, which is where it's broken. Which is where an FAQ comes in and changes the wording to say 'in the units following turn'. It fixes the AV rule, and it fixes the crap where AV doesn't work for a wrecked or explodes result for the following turn.

The rule works fine. You're easter egging because you want it to be better than it is.

ThePhish wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're ignoring the fact that RAW you have no permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn to claim that the game is broken?

I'm not ignoring that phrase. I've acknowledged it, unlike your stance that literally requires ignoring rules. I've shown you where. Are you still going to decline to show permission to declare a charge in your opponents turn? Without such permission your interpretation cannot be the RAW.

As I've already stated, the rule gives permission.

Beyond permission... there are no rules to cover it, which is where it's broken. Which is where an FAQ comes in and changes the wording to say 'in the units following turn'. It fixes the AV rule, and it fixes the crap where AV doesn't work for a wrecked or explodes result for the following turn.

If something "gives permission" to do something against the rules but "doesnt give rules to cover it." Then it probably did not give permission to do something against the rules. Focusing on "turn" completely as a basis for an argument (or any single word) usually shows your interpreting it without context. GW often uses plain speech rather than legal in writing these rules. "Turn" in this case is simply used to describe the event of being destroyed.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they don't. As I pointed out - even if you have permission to make an assault in your opponents phase, the assault phase rules require that it be the owning player that declares assaults. Find the permission to avoid that rule. And then there's the rule that the current player is the one who decides when to move on to the Fight sub-phase. Find the permission to avoid that rule.

Can't avoid those rules. It makes the permissions given to assault pointless. Doesn't change that you have permission.

The assault vehicle rules are not broken.

Broken may not be the best choice of words. More like a dead end. There cannot be an outcome with no rules to support it. It's not going to stop some people from trying to make it happen though which is another reason I would like to see an faq. Close loop holes and end discussion.

The rule works fine. You're easter egging because you want it to be better than it is.

Nah, I want the rule to not be debatable. I don't want sloppy rules that lead to open ended bickering b/c of poor wording, or lazy writing. I don't want rules that are "intended" for one thing but aren't written well enough to accomplish what it was intended for. I think the part about "even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed" is intended to allow assaulting after getting shot down, but doesn't accomplish that. Then again, it could simply mean that you're still allowed to assault after failing a dangerous terrain check and immobilising it. We won't know for sure without an FAQ.

As has been established, we both play it the same way, so the argument is moot.

ThePhish wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they don't. As I pointed out - even if you have permission to make an assault in your opponents phase, the assault phase rules require that it be the owning player that declares assaults. Find the permission to avoid that rule. And then there's the rule that the current player is the one who decides when to move on to the Fight sub-phase. Find the permission to avoid that rule.

Can't avoid those rules. It makes the permissions given to assault pointless. Doesn't change that you have permission.

So... You're arguing that you have permission to do something but don't have permission to do it?
That's not a very useful thing to mention, care about, or demand an FAQ for. I don't see an issue here.

The assault vehicle rules are not broken.

Broken may not be the best choice of words. More like a dead end. There cannot be an outcome with no rules to support it. It's not going to stop some people from trying to make it happen though which is another reason I would like to see an faq. Close loop holes and end discussion.

There are rules to support it. Why do you say there aren't? You're never granted permission to declare an assault in your opponents turn. Therefore it doesn't matter how you try and twist rules to say you can, without that permission it's a dead end.

Then again, it could simply mean that you're still allowed to assault after failing a dangerous terrain check and immobilising it. We won't know for sure without an FAQ.

So.., you're not Easter egging, you just want the rule to do more than it currently does. Yeah. Okay.
You're the one manipulating the wording and ignoring context to try and break the assault phase in an attempt to say "See? Conflict! We need a FAQ!". There's no actual rules that support your interpretation, and you've admitted that even if the rules did, it'd be a useless interpretation.
Praying for clear cut rules is akin to planning on winning the lottery - I wouldn't hold your breath.

As has been established, we both play it the same way, so the argument is moot.

Not really - you keep insisting the rules are vague and unclear and require an FAQ because if you take a word out of context the assault phase doesn't break. And haven't shown rules support. And have admitted the rules don't really support your viewpoint.

Also - where are people getting this idea that you lose a HP when you fail a dangerous terrain test?

ThePhish wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they don't. As I pointed out - even if you have permission to make an assault in your opponents phase, the assault phase rules require that it be the owning player that declares assaults. Find the permission to avoid that rule. And then there's the rule that the current player is the one who decides when to move on to the Fight sub-phase. Find the permission to avoid that rule.

Can't avoid those rules. It makes the permissions given to assault pointless. Doesn't change that you have permission.

The assault vehicle rules are not broken.

Broken may not be the best choice of words. More like a dead end. There cannot be an outcome with no rules to support it. It's not going to stop some people from trying to make it happen though which is another reason I would like to see an faq. Close loop holes and end discussion.

The rule works fine. You're easter egging because you want it to be better than it is.

Nah, I want the rule to not be debatable. I don't want sloppy rules that lead to open ended bickering b/c of poor wording, or lazy writing. I don't want rules that are "intended" for one thing but aren't written well enough to accomplish what it was intended for. I think the part about "even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed" is intended to allow assaulting after getting shot down, but doesn't accomplish that. Then again, it could simply mean that you're still allowed to assault after failing a dangerous terrain check and immobilising it. We won't know for sure without an FAQ.

As has been established, we both play it the same way, so the argument is moot.

Alright, you have permission, then please explain citing the BRB for reference, as to how the mechanic of declaring a charge in your opponent's turn works.

I agree with rigeld2. An FAQ will not clear up this rule, just the mindset of people who think it works that way.If there were ANY notion, ANY where else, then I could see how this could be argued. This is the ONLY slight reference to charging in your opponent's turn that I can see.

The wording in question is in case a vehicle with an assault ramp were to ram another and wreck. The unit may then assault whereas it would have not been able to normally.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Also - where are people getting this idea that you lose a HP when you fail a dangerous terrain test?

From 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

FAQ v1 brb. So this should answer your question on assault vehicles in the following turn. The other question many are debating about assaulting in the opponents turn is NULL and Void since you cannot assault in your opponents turn. SO I dont want to read they cannot assault the following turn anymore from an assault vehicle..

Yes. This thread is all FAQ'd up now.