Assaulting from an exploded vehicle.

[Saim-Hann Lord]

So I'm playing a game, my guard explode a rhino that had khorne berserkers in it. They fall out and the following turn they assault me. A passing staff member said they can't assault the turn after they fall out of an exploded vehicle. A huge bonus for me but...

Where is this in the rulebook!?!? I can't find it!!

Cheers

[Comrade Penguin]

I believe that you can actually assault after a vehicle explodes. If you start a turn in a vehicle you cannot disembark and charge, but it doesn't say anything about not charging after your vehicle is wrecked. Kind of silly because it means its sometimes better to leave a unit in a transport than blowing it up.

[Cthell]

Not allowed; the wording is "in their subsequent assault phase"

[Nurgling Chieftain]

If you start a turn in a vehicle you cannot disembark and charge, but it doesn't say anything about not charging after your vehicle is wrecked.

When their vehicle is wrecked, they disembark.

[GodlessM]

When a vehicle is wrecked or explodes the passengers count as disembarking, which has a clause that in their subsequent assault phase they cannot assault. So if you blow it up in your turn, the enemy subsequent assault phase is in the next enemy player turn. So he couldn't assault you.

[Bubble Ghost]

RAW, no you can't. Your units are forbidden from assaulting in "their subsequent assault phase" when they disembark (p.79), and while this implies that it's only talking about the assault phase coming up right now, it does not literally mean that. What it actually says is that you miss your next chance to assault, no matter when that is.

For Rules As Intended, it's a weird one, because what they seem to have intended - that you can assault from an exploded vehicle - is actually bloody stupid, and the pedantic RAW reading above actually makes a lot more logical and narrative sense.

So, letter of the rules and common sense say you can't. The terrible design decision the writers screwed up the wording of says you can. Up to you which you go with, I guess.

[chizal]

ah another exploding vehicle thread check page 426 summary of vehicle damage and its effects on passengers = exploding also makes you disembark

[Cthell]

For Rules As Intended, it's a weird one, because what they seem to have intended - that you can assault from an exploded vehicle - is actually bloody stupid, and the pedantic RAW reading above actually makes a lot more logical and narrative sense.

I'm not sure they intended you to be able to assault out of a destroyed vehicle; otherwise why would the "Assault Vehicle" rule specifically state "even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed"?

[Lord Inquisitor]

I think that's to cover situations where a vehicle is destroyed by death or glory. If it said "even the turn after the vehicle was destroyed" that would make more sense...

[Bubble Ghost]

I'm not sure they intended you to be able to assault out of a destroyed vehicle; otherwise why would the "Assault Vehicle" rule specifically state "even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed"?

I think that's just them "just in case-proofing" it against unusual stuff. For example, Interceptor fire or mysterious terrain, which could destroy a vehicle in your own movement phase.

I think they did mean to suggest that you can assault from a transport destroyed in the previous turn, because that seems to be the level of reality they set 40K at. I think it's to do with intro games. Thing is, "well, actually, all this is supposed to be happening at the same time, and I know it's your turn now, but your turn is actually happening at the same time as my turn, and so your tank being blown up in my turn is the same as you getting out of it in your turn! Get it?" makes sense once you unravel the 'system' of the game, but it's only going to to seem alien and unintuitive to casual newbies trying out the game in a shop. "But it's my turn! I haven't done anything yet! Why can't I charge?"

And so they don't bother accounting for it. The result is nonsense like rocket jumping into close combat as in this thead, and also stuff like hoping your troops get wiped out in combat if it's your own player turn next - but I think GW are aware of this, and think that this doesn't matter as much as making sure the game is easy to follow on the surface. Which is a shame.

I could be wrong, and be pleasantly surprised when they FAQ it, but I doubt it.

And that still wouldn't help the fact that when a load of Khorne Berzerkers charge me, I'm praying that my troops get slaughtered and run like cowards, because that is what will allow me to fire at the Berzerkers...

[Lord Inquisitor]

I don't think "their subsequent assault phase" was ever intended to mean anything beyond disembarking in their turn and wanting to assault after that. The rules in this section are written entirely from the owning player's turn. Which is not to say it won't be how it is ruled though. It'll be an interesting one to watch for a FAQ for, because it could go either way and it would make sense both ways.

Very odd situation as the RAW interpretation is in many ways more sensible than what was probably the intent of the rule.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

For my part, I find the notion that wrecking a vehicle would allow its contents to assault next turn, while leaving it intact would not, to be much more counter-intuitive than any other interpretation. Although, it might be the best way to get Banshees to work in 6th edition.

[Thoth62]

The search function is your friend. This issue was discussed at length only a few days ago.

[Coredump]

The ways the rules are now make the most sense.

If you could assault after a wreck, then you would *want* to get your vehicle wrecked... and you would not want to wreck your opponents vehicles...

That would make no sense.

[bobafett012]

I don't think "their subsequent assault phase" was ever intended to mean anything beyond disembarking in their turn and wanting to assault after that. The rules in this section are written entirely from the owning player's turn. Which is not to say it won't be how it is ruled though. It'll be an interesting one to watch for a FAQ for, because it could go either way and it would make sense both ways.

Very odd situation as the RAW interpretation is in many ways more sensible than what was probably the intent of the rule.

This was essentially the main part of my argument. The language in that section is all written around disembarking on your own turn, but again that is my opinion and my interpretation.

The ways the rules are now make the most sense.

If you could assault after a wreck, then you would *want* to get your vehicle wrecked... and you would not want to wreck your opponents vehicles...

That would make no sense.

I completely disagree with this sentiment. I pop transports for 2 reasons, 1) to charge the contents inside, and/or 2) to shoot the contents inside. When I pop a transport, I am not hearing the opponent say "thank god, now i get to charge you next turn", they are saying, "****, there goes that squad..."

the other reason I think you should certainly be able to assault on your own assault phase is that if you can't, the rule is far more detrimental to assaulty squads and basically non exisitant to ranged squads. I mean, what many are saying is that if my assaulty squads gets out of his transport after its destroyed they just have to stand around for 2 of the opponents shooting phases dying, unable to assault anything, whilst a ranged squad can essentially act normally and return fire(apparently they are not as disoriented as an assaulty squad?). that just doesn't make sense to me from a rules stand point, nor does it make sense to me from a logical stand point.

[Coredump]

So, you think that if your transport stays intact, you can't get out and charge your opponents.
But if your transport gets destroyed, then it is okay to charge your opponents.

I don't know how else to explain this. It makes no sense for you to be better off with an exploding transport.

[snake-eyez]

So, you think that if your transport stays intact, you can't get out and charge your opponents.
But if your transport gets destroyed, then it is okay to charge your opponents.

I don't know how else to explain this. It makes no sense for you to be better off with an exploding transport.

As bobafett stated, you generally destroy the transports to shoot and assault the occupants. Since you choose the order of you shooting attacks, its normally most logical to fire anti tank weapons on vehicles before using your anti infantry shooting, so they (the occupants of the wrecked vehile) generally don't come out and stay as a complete and unharmed unit for the rest of the turn (ie. I use crisis suits with missile pods on light armoured transports, then kroot and firewarriors to shoot the occupants).

As was pointed out in the other thread, ideal in 40k is not always what would be ideal in something that wasn't turn based. Look at assaults as an example. If someone's assault marine squad charges a squad of my firewarriors, they would greatly prefer to not kill them all, and for my firewarriors to pass their leadership during their assault phase. This obviously being so they can't be shot by my shooty army in my next turn. In a "real life" (so to speak) situation, you would want to kill the enemy unit in assault as fast as possible and move on.

I'm not sure they intended you to be able to assault out of a destroyed vehicle; otherwise why would the "Assault Vehicle" rule specifically state "even on a turn the vehicle was destroyed"?

Lord Inquisitor answers this, another possible answer (addressed in the other thread) is your own blast shots could destroy your own assault vehicle in your own shooting phase (ork boom gun scattering over its own trukk is an example)

I think that's to cover situations where a vehicle is destroyed by death or glory. If it said "even the turn after the vehicle was destroyed" that would make more sense...

The search function is your friend. This issue was discussed at length only a few days ago.

Indeed, we all pitched our tents on opposing sides, and now we wait for the official FAQ.

While I stated my arguments there, the FAQ could go against me. Considering how stupid the change is that you can't get out of a rhino that hasn't moved and then assault, I could see them FAQing this against my view. That way you can really hit the last nail into the rhino's coffin, and they would be nothing more than a mobile coffin for their poor occupants. At least Chimeras have a decent amount of firepower and allow for 5 or 6 models to shoot out the top. All that said, my interpretation of the wording hasn't changed.

[insectum7]

Having read through many pages of this I feel obligated to remind people that in 4th edition, when troops had to pile out of a destroyed vehicle they were "entangled" meaning that they were automatically pinned even if they were a unit that could not normally be pinned. Which is very, very severe.

Also, another example that I haven't seen is what happens if your transport is destroyed in the enemy assault phase? If "their subsequent turn" meant (somehow) "the next assault phase to come around, friendly or enemy", you would have a case where the disembarking unit would be able to assault in their next turn if the transport was destroyed by shooting, but not if the transport was destroyed in the enemy assault phase. Which would be pretty ridiculous.

The wording in the Assault Vehicle section seems to be another reinforcement for the inability to perform an assault as well.

So after reading the arguments on both sides (which incidentally seems clearly against being able to assault to me) I'm honestly of the opinion that the restriction on assaulting is a half-rollback to transport dangers of 4th edition. Models are restricted from assaulting when recovering from a destroyed vehicle, but unlike 4th edition they can take some amount of action.

[Infidel]

Coming from this thread, I've argued in length as to "why you can't assault out of a destroyed transport".

Let's go through each and every one of the arguments.

Argument 1: You don't "disembark" from a destroyed transport.

This is clearly false. The BRB states that you do.

However, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed.

And futher cemented by the table on page 426, in which both Wrecked and Destroyed result were noted to cause passengers to disembark

Argument 2: If a vehicle is destroyed in the opponent's turn, you can assault in your turn.

Again, a clear "no".

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.

Argument 3: "Their subsequent assault phase" happens in the enemy's turn.

Um, no? Just no. Models are some times given permission to act in the opponent's turn, striking in assault phase, fire interceptor gun or arrive from reserve in response to an event etc, but they're NOT YOUR PHASE. By that arguement, the rule on page 79 also allows you to shoot in the opponent's shooting phase, since "their subsequent Shooting phase" will also occur in the opponent's turn. Are you allowed to do that? No? Then neither can you assault.

Argument 4: The rules on page 79 is meant for when the passengers are forced to disembark in your turn, thus it does not apply to the said disembarktation in the enemy's turn

This one is down right twisting the RAW. Just because you feel something was intended to be read in a particular way doesn't mean you can just ignore the rules explicitly forbidding the said assault to take place.

Argument 5: The table on page 426 lists out all the effects on the passenger as a result of vehicle damage. Under Wrecked and Expldes! it does not explicitly forbid the charge to occur, so they can charge.

This is a new one, and this not even something you can legitimately argue. Rule books stipulates what you can do and anything it did not grant you explicit permission to do, you CANT. Arguing in that direction results in the exact opposite scenario where one is allowed to do anything the rules don't not explicitly forbid. If that's the case, the USR compendium did not explicitly forbid you from using a USR that your model does not posses, so does that mean that my model simultaneously benefit from EVERY USR in existence since it is not explcitly said that I can't?

In short. No.

Furthermore, the other rows clearly says "None" under the "Other Effects" column, does that mean you can charge out of a stationary vehicle since the vehicle does not impart any effect on its passenger? Obviously no, so why would forced disembarktation suddenly give them the permission to do so?

Argument 6: The german codex/FAQ said so

Well, we're not using the German rule book are we? And foreign language codices are known to be riddled with translation issues. Different language ultilises different gramatical structure when it comes to possessive forms, tenses, transitive verbs etc. and I know for a fact that the English version is treated as being the authoratitive version when rule conflicts arise using codices and rulebooks printed in other languages and not the other way around.

I think that's about it. These are explicit RAW rulings and doesn't include more inferential things like:

Passengers disembarking from Access Pointson a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so, even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed.

and more logical inferences. Imagine the utter retardation that would arise where you load your transport with assault troops and park them in front of the enemy, praying that they get destroyed in a freak misfire or a lapse in judgement on the part of your opponent.

If you want to claim that this is "just your interpretation" or "you're just defending your presupposition", then so be it. I have presented all the relevant RAW quotes, so if you believe that I have misinterpreted them, please let me know. I would very much like to know how is it that I'm getting it all wrong.

[shadekiller]

IMHO the pg.79 argument infidel posted is the nail in the coffin for this argument... It make no sense to say that "you count as moving in your subsequent shooting phase" refer to your following turn while "cannot declare a charge in their subsequent assault phase" refer to your opponent assault phase..:P We will all agree that if you disembark due to wreck or explode you will count as having moved in your next turn, it's as much silly to say that you don't as saying you can charge. It may be confusing but it's clear by raw, it's even written "their" meaning that the unit may not declare a charge in his OWN subsequent phase. I don't see the issue, not sure we really need a FAQ to clear this up really.