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.

I seem to remember before people thought you could assault out of a non assault vehicle as long as its been exploded and not wrecked, is this still the case after the FAQ's were released? as far as I can read the FAQ's did say they could not but had a discussion recently about it.

Folks tried to argue that being placed in the crater after a vehicle explodes was not disembarking, despite the same rule explicitly referring to the unit as the "now-disembarked" squad.

GW did also explicitly FAQ it on page 7 of the FAQ to nail the point home and do away with the silly argument.

This was something you could do in 5th. My cousin used to love getting his Rhinos killed in my shooting phase, so that his Marines could then assault in his next turn. But, as was said, the 6th FAQ explicitly forbids this. Unless you were in an Assault Vehicle, then it's ok.

Yes, it is gone. I always hated this silly argument.

If you think that your marines should be able to assault on the turn that their ride was destroyed, then you are telling me that they are more adept at extricating themselves from a rhino's twisted burning wreckage than they are at using it's doors. Ridiculous.

Arguement being put forward is the FAQ says about disembarking but there is no disembark mentioned in the explosion part in the BRB

Don't try mark, it's not possible and been beat into the ground by the fury of 99 thousand dead horses.

MarkyMark wrote:
Arguement being put forward is the FAQ says about disembarking but there is no disembark mentioned in the explosion part in the BRB

If you're thinking about contradicting me when I've quoted the rule, you might want to go re-read it first, to avoid posting something factually inaccurate.

 Mannahnin wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Arguement being put forward is the FAQ says about disembarking but there is no disembark mentioned in the explosion part in the BRB

If you're thinking about contradicting me when I've quoted the rule, you might want to go re-read it first, to avoid posting something factually inaccurate.

Actually, I think the loophole is still there.

I know the reference you're talking about (on page 80, last paragraph of the transports section), but even that only refers to a shooting attack. So technically speaking I think someone could argue that if a transport vehicle explodes due to close combat attacks that the model inside don't count as having disembarked. Or you could even claim that the paragraph you're talking about it referring ONLY to models that have disembarked due to a shooting attack (i.e., if the vehicle exploded, you are not allowed to charge the occupants, as they did not disembark).

You know I think this loophole is bunk and I don't play that way, but I don't think GW has actually closed it at all.

 yakface wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Arguement being put forward is the FAQ says about disembarking but there is no disembark mentioned in the explosion part in the BRB

If you're thinking about contradicting me when I've quoted the rule, you might want to go re-read it first, to avoid posting something factually inaccurate.

Actually, I think the loophole is still there.

I know the reference you're talking about (on page 80, last paragraph of the transports section), but even that only refers to a shooting attack. So technically speaking I think someone could argue that if a transport vehicle explodes due to close combat attacks that the model inside don't count as having disembarked. Or you could even claim that the paragraph you're talking about it referring ONLY to models that have disembarked due to a shooting attack (i.e., if the vehicle exploded, you are not allowed to charge the occupants, as they did not disembark).

Funny thought popped into mind.
By that logic because the unit did not disembark, the occupants inside could never be destroyed by anything since they could stay embarked on the invisible, invulnerable (and immovable) transport vehicle.
Assuming of course that they would never decide to voluntarily disembark.
The transported units would not have disembarked and their transport could not be destroyed.
After all, it is very hard to draw a line of sight to a vehicle that's been removed from the table and you cannot target an enemy unit embarked on a transport.

 Mannahnin wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Arguement being put forward is the FAQ says about disembarking but there is no disembark mentioned in the explosion part in the BRB

If you're thinking about contradicting me when I've quoted the rule, you might want to go re-read it first, to avoid posting something factually inaccurate.

Mannahnin, I am agreeing with you!, theres a tournie this weekend and I am trying to push this forward to a few of the main players there, but as the FAQ says disembark and the part about exploded in the BRB does not mention disembarking RAW there still is room to say that the FAQ does not apply. I do agree that destroyed means exploded more so then if it was wrecked but its annoying that GW did not bother to use exploded or wrecked and used destroyed instead.

Destroyed means both, Wrecked and Explodes.
I think it is pretty clear, because on page 427 (also 74) it says:

Wrecked:
Once a vehicle is reduced to 0 Hull Points it is wrecked. The vehicle is destroyed but left on the battlefield...

Explodes:
The vehicle is destroyed. Roll a D6...

So ...if a Transport is destroyed by a shooting attack, any unit that shot it that turn can, if allowed, charge the now disembarked passengers.

Or simply see page 426, its all there.

MarkyMark wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Arguement being put forward is the FAQ says about disembarking but there is no disembark mentioned in the explosion part in the BRB

If you're thinking about contradicting me when I've quoted the rule, you might want to go re-read it first, to avoid posting something factually inaccurate.

Mannahnin, I am agreeing with you!, theres a tournie this weekend and I am trying to push this forward to a few of the main players there, but as the FAQ says disembark and the part about exploded in the BRB does not mention disembarking RAW there still is room to say that the FAQ does not apply. I do agree that destroyed means exploded more so then if it was wrecked but its annoying that GW did not bother to use exploded or wrecked and used destroyed instead.

I might be entering into this a little late but I think the way I would argue it is...

The Explodes! result in the main rules says remove the vehicle and place the unit within the footprint of the vehicle. The summary section says that they disembark and move 3".

Now while this might look like a conflict, what I think they've done is followed the logic of: 'following an Explodes! result they disembark 3" however there is now no access point to measure from. So, place the models where the vehicle was destroyed, then disembark 3" from that position.'

The way I read it, that resolved both the rules in the main section and the rules in the summary section without conflict. RAW means you have to follow all the relevant rules written which includes the ones in the summary.

Pretty much so. Why would there be a summary if it was not correct?

edit: Now i see, the summary was FAQ'd.. Interesting...

HawkWall wrote:
Pretty much so. Why would there be a summary if it was not correct?

GW has already addressed some issues with the summary, such as charging through difficult terrain with jump packs. Just because there is a summary does not automatically make it correct.

HawkWall wrote:
Destroyed means both, Wrecked and Explodes.
I think it is pretty clear, because on page 427 (also 74) it says:

Wrecked:
Once a vehicle is reduced to 0 Hull Points it is wrecked. The vehicle is destroyed but left on the battlefield...

Explodes:
The vehicle is destroyed. Roll a D6...

So ...if a Transport is destroyed by a shooting attack, any unit that shot it that turn can, if allowed, charge the now disembarked passengers.

Or simply see page 426, its all there.

Check out the errata section of the rulebook FAQ.

Page 426 has been changed to match the wording in the main section (the word disembark has been removed).

So although you're right about the reference to vehicles being 'destroyed', at best technically that still only covers shooting attacks...and even so it is far more of a passing reference than the clear rule it should be.

 yakface wrote:

HawkWall wrote:
Destroyed means both, Wrecked and Explodes.
I think it is pretty clear, because on page 427 (also 74) it says:

Wrecked:
Once a vehicle is reduced to 0 Hull Points it is wrecked. The vehicle is destroyed but left on the battlefield...

Explodes:
The vehicle is destroyed. Roll a D6...

So ...if a Transport is destroyed by a shooting attack, any unit that shot it that turn can, if allowed, charge the now disembarked passengers.

Or simply see page 426, its all there.

Check out the errata section of the rulebook FAQ.

Page 426 has been changed to match the wording in the main section (the word disembark has been removed).

So although you're right about the reference to vehicles being 'destroyed', at best technically that still only covers shooting attacks...and even so it is far more of a passing reference than the clear rule it should be.

Yeah i noticed that..
Hmm.. I have to say, a very interesting choice of words there..
But wouldn't it mean that they are disembarked because embarked models cannot be pinned?

HawkWall wrote:

Yeah i noticed that..
Hmm.. I have to say, a very interesting choice of words there..
But wouldn't it mean that they are disembarked because embarked models cannot be pinned?

Nobody ever tries to claim that they're still embarked (as the models are on the table, which goes against what being embarked is), they just say that the models don't count as having been placed there without disembarking and therefore aren't subject to any rules that apply to disembarking models (like not being able to assault immediately, for example).

This issue has been around since 5th edition, and they really should do a better job of making it clear because i understand why people think there is a difference.

 yakface wrote:

HawkWall wrote:

Yeah i noticed that..
Hmm.. I have to say, a very interesting choice of words there..
But wouldn't it mean that they are disembarked because embarked models cannot be pinned?

Nobody ever tries to claim that they're still embarked (as the models are on the table, which goes against what being embarked is), they just say that the models don't count as having been placed there without disembarking and therefore aren't subject to any rules that apply to disembarking models (like not being able to assault immediately, for example).

This issue has been around since 5th edition, and they really should do a better job of making it clear because i understand why people think there is a difference.

You mean 'don't count as having been placed there by disembarking'?
Or 'without disembarking, the models don't count as having been placed there'? (Sorry, im not a native english speaker so i may get something wrong here)
Is it even possible to explode your transport in one of your own phases? By a scattering blast weapon i suppose, but that is very rare..

Is this the issue?: Are the passengers counted as having disembarked if the transport exploded because of a close combat attack?

In any case, what could the models ever even do, other than to be placed there?
Since it is not their turn in which the transport is destroyed.

HawkWall wrote:

You mean 'don't count as having been placed there by disembarking'?
Or 'without disembarking, the models don't count as having been placed there'? (Sorry, im not a native english speaker so i may get something wrong here)
Is it even possible to explode your transport in one of your own phases? By a scattering blast weapon i suppose, but that is very rare..

Is this the issue?: Are the passengers counted as having disembarked if the transport exploded because of a close combat attack?

In any case, what could the models ever even do, other than to be placed there?
Since it is not their turn in which the transport is destroyed.

Yeah, you caught my grammar screw up...you got the right point though.

The issue is mainly being able to assault in the their next assault phase. If a vehicle gets wrecked by enemy CC attacks on the enemy turn then there is no ambiguity: the disembarked passengers cannot charge in their next assault phase.

But if the vehicle explodes, then all of a sudden there is ambiguity as to whether the passengers can now charge in their next assault phase.

 yakface wrote:

HawkWall wrote:

You mean 'don't count as having been placed there by disembarking'?
Or 'without disembarking, the models don't count as having been placed there'? (Sorry, im not a native english speaker so i may get something wrong here)
Is it even possible to explode your transport in one of your own phases? By a scattering blast weapon i suppose, but that is very rare..

Is this the issue?: Are the passengers counted as having disembarked if the transport exploded because of a close combat attack?

In any case, what could the models ever even do, other than to be placed there?
Since it is not their turn in which the transport is destroyed.

Yeah, you caught my grammar screw up...you got the right point though.

The issue is mainly being able to assault in the their next assault phase. If a vehicle gets wrecked by enemy CC attacks on the enemy turn then there is no ambiguity: the disembarked passengers cannot charge in their next assault phase.

But if the vehicle explodes, then all of a sudden there is ambiguity as to whether the passengers can now charge in their next assault phase.

Ok, thanks now i'm on the map again. Kinda.
A strange thing that a chariot's (which is usually a dedicated transport) rider makes an emergency disembarkation if it is wrecked or explodes in close combat.

HawkWall wrote:

Ok, thanks now i'm on the map again. Kinda.
A strange thing that a chariot's (which is usually a dedicated transport) rider makes an emergency disembarkation if it is wrecked or explodes in close combat.

Yeah, it's just another case of them not being consistent.

I personally wish they would have used the errata the opposite way (to make the main rules match the summary), because I think that is a much cleaner way to handle everything.

 yakface wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Arguement being put forward is the FAQ says about disembarking but there is no disembark mentioned in the explosion part in the BRB

If you're thinking about contradicting me when I've quoted the rule, you might want to go re-read it first, to avoid posting something factually inaccurate.

Actually, I think the loophole is still there.

I know the reference you're talking about (on page 80, last paragraph of the transports section), but even that only refers to a shooting attack. So technically speaking I think someone could argue that if a transport vehicle explodes due to close combat attacks that the model inside don't count as having disembarked. Or you could even claim that the paragraph you're talking about it referring ONLY to models that have disembarked due to a shooting attack (i.e., if the vehicle exploded, you are not allowed to charge the occupants, as they did not disembark).

You know I think this loophole is bunk and I don't play that way, but I don't think GW has actually closed it at all.

Wait, the way I understood it, a vehicle cannot explode due to close combat attacks...each glance counts as a HP and each penetrating hit counts at 2 HP. At least this was the way I was taught/how our group plays it.

Is that incorrect?

Only for determining combat results, i.e. who won the combat.

It can, of course, still take damage.

roxor08 wrote:

Wait, the way I understood it, a vehicle cannot explode due to close combat attacks...each glance counts as a HP and each penetrating hit counts at 2 HP. At least this was the way I was taught/how our group plays it.

Is that incorrect?

Somebody done lied to you!

There is no difference in how penetrating CC attacks roll on the damage table compared to shooting.

As I said, I think it is misunderstanding the vehicle and CC *results* rules, where a penetrating hit counts as 2 "wounds" and a glancing hit 1 "wound"

I'll throw the FAQ into the mix.

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.

The RAI is pretty clear. At least they're trying. But, I think the RAW questions, "Is an exploded vehicle destroyed?" and "Did the unit disembark from an exploded vehicle?" aren't covered by this FAQ answer.

HIWPI: If it's not an assault vehicle, no matter how your squad came to be no-longer-occupying the interior of the vehicle, you can't assault during your next Assault Phase.

Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'll throw the FAQ into the mix.

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.

The RAI is pretty clear. At least they're trying. But, I think the RAW questions, "Is an exploded vehicle destroyed?" and "Did the unit disembark from an exploded vehicle?" aren't covered by this FAQ answer.

HIWPI: If it's not an assault vehicle, no matter how your squad came to be no-longer-occupying the interior of the vehicle, you can't assault during your next Assault Phase.

That is clearly how the rules are intended.
Also, i don't think they ever meant the book to be a battleground of intepretations though.
They probably thought people wouldn't take a game so seriously that they would have to take all perspectives in account.

But, now they desperately want us to send them questions so they can FAQ them.
And i have to say, i don't blame them for making these errors in the books.
Writing a book like that (let alone a dozen books) and trying to make them all fit together and always obeying/never crossing any rules, must be a hell of an undertaking.

But the e-mail address should have been available a looong time ago, because the community that actually plays these games will encounter every single error that is in the game.

Dude, email address for FAQ's are on the GW website

MarkyMark wrote:
Dude, email address for FAQ's are on the GW website

I've had a difficult time finding it in the past. It should be on the page with the FAQ's, along with the main Contact Us page, but that's just a personal gripe.

In the meantime, here is the email address for GW FAQs: gamefaqs@gwplc.com

MarkyMark wrote:
Dude, email address for FAQ's are on the GW website

...Yes, i know and i said it should have been there sooner.. As in 4-5th edition..
And kronk, you had a difficult time finding it in the past because it was not there in the past.
I think they put it up on the page somewhere near the end of last year..