Assaulting from an exploded vehicle.

[Infidel]

Just because it isn't the answer you agree with or "want" to hear doesn't mean it cannot be read the other way. You are reading your INTERPRETATION based on an inference. That is not RAW. That is, in all fairness, your version of RAI. If you have to make the jump from a section dealing with disembark on your own turn and apply it to something else, you are making an interpretation.

So show me the part where it deals with disembarking in the enemy's turn. There isn't one? Too bad. If you want to read the rule that govens disembarktation and argue that it does not apply (or is not intended for) disembarktation that occurs in the enemy's turn, then you are far more delusional than I thought.

I don't understand why you can't understand that you are making a leap in logic. It doesn't matter if your assumption is logical or illogical. It is still a leap. Other people are looking at that and not making the assumption they get to make that leap. They are closer to RAW for that reason. As other people have pointed out, the wording upon which you base your hopes doesn't even appear in some foreign versions of the rules.

A leap to say...disembarktation rules governs disembarktation irrespective of when it happens? Sure, that's a big leap.

So let's look at the FACTS:

So let's do that.

1. Customer support (and I've called myself and talked to five different people) all support that if the vehicle is destroyed on your opponent's turn that you can assault in your next one.

Like the other times that customer support told people that Hammerhand didn't stack (when it was ruled explicitly that it does) or when it was said that Trazyn's empathic obliterator worked when sweeping (that was 5th ed) or when you're allowed to fire searchlight when you don't have any weapon left. All these things are buried in old rule discussion somewhere, I'm sure others can find example of GW staff/customer support making mistakes. Bottom line? Their words hold as much value as fortune cookie whichever way they rule it. I certainly wouldn't count it as support.

2. The German version leaves NO AMBIGUITY that you can assault in your turn if your vehicle was destroyed in an opponent's turn.

It's really a sad sight. The RAW in english doesn't agree with you so you jump on a foreign language codex, which was TRANSLATED FROM ENGLISH, desperately holding on to anything that might support your argument when the english RAW is there right in your face. The German version of the CSM FAQ also says DP is a Flyer rather than Jump and the Rules forum is riddled with people asking for clarification in case of ambiguous translation. If you have attended any foreign tournament, then you will know that the english version is held as being the authority when there is a rule conflict, and not the other way around.

3. The chart which indicates what penalties are applied makes no mention of a carry over penalty and in fact lists the possibility of a Pinning Check which MIGHT result in the penalty that you want to apply automatically.

Key being "might", but it isn't, that might part is a fabrication on your part. You still failed to address my argument directly. The cell for penalty in the stationary row says "None", does that mean they can assault out of a transport when the vehicle was stationary? No. So why would that make it suddenly okay to do so when the vehicle is destroyed? It isna't an additional penalty since you WERE NEVER ALLOWED TO DO IT.

4. Precedent of the last three editions goes with being able to assault on your turn if your vehicle was destroyed on your opponent's turn.

This isn't even an argument. Precedent from previous editions? Yeah, because rule totally don't change THAT MUCH between editions.

I'll stop with the big four because the other six or so I could put down start do to what you are guilty of, making inferences and assumptions.

But you're totally cool with making inferences and assumptions when the RAW was clearly against you. Yep, that's sound logic at work right there.

Now let's go to what you are using to support your argument which you feel is ironclad. There is only ONE:

1. Based on a single word in a different section of the rules dealing with disembarking during your own turn there can be construed an implication of personal possessive, i.e. "their" next assault phase.

That's it. Against the weight of all those other things you have laid down your ironclad, unshakable conviction that all other evidence is foolish and anyone giving such things weight are idiots. You go so far as to say you don't understand why there is even any doubt. It doesn't matter to you that other versions of the rules don't use that personal possessive at all. Your opinion is inviolate. I'm just hoping, even if we disagree about the rule, that laying it out in this manner can at least demonstrate that people who disagree with you are basing it on something.

Yeah, because "their" is pretty clear. If you want to just drop a word from a rule you don't like, you might as well drop the "not" from "may not declare an assault in their subsequent assault phase". There, problem solved.

In closing, please remind me why "their subsequent shooting/assault phase" occurs in the enemy's turn? Am I allowed to shoot or indeed, run, when my unit is forced to disembark on the enemy's turn? Will you allow that? Will anyone allow that? Just think about it.

EDIT: Some may find my tone hostile, and for that I apologise. I don't mind being wrong, as a matter of fact, I love being proven wrong, because that means I've learned something. In this case, it's not even a legitimate argument, it's a bunch of dudes ignoring the clearly written rules for the sole purpose of creating a non-sensicle scenario (so I'll park my transports on your doorstep and pray that you destroy them. Yep, makes total sense) which might be occassionally be in their benefit.

[Caitsidhe]

Some may find my tone hostile, and for that I apologise. I don't mind being wrong, as a matter of fact, I love being proven wrong, because that means I've learned something. In this case, it's not even a legitimate argument, it's a bunch of dudes ignoring the clearly written rules for the sole purpose of creating a non-sensicle scenario (so I'll park my transports on your doorstep and pray that you destroy them. Yep, makes total sense) which might be occassionally be in their benefit.

I'm glad you don't mind being wrong. Both of us have a 50/50 chance of being wrong when the Faq comes out. Since I don't care one way or the other and merely want it crystal clear and you say you don't mind being wrong, everyone should be thrilled soon enough. My personal view is you are entitled to sound as hostile, self-righteous, and certain as you like. It is a free country (or series of them). It just makes things more fun later.

[Infidel]

I'm glad you don't mind being wrong. Both of us have a 50/50 chance of being wrong when the Faq comes out. Since I don't care one way or the other and merely want it crystal clear and you say you don't mind being wrong, everyone should be thrilled soon enough. My personal view is you are entitled to sound as hostile, self-righteous, and certain as you like. It is a free country (or series of them). It just makes things more fun later.

And that is a logical fallacy, also known as the balance fallacy. Since you're such a big fan of logic I'd suggest that you go read up on it.

Just because there are only two possible outcomes, it doesn't mean that the probability is a 50/50 split. Your inability to read, or refusal to read, the rule clearly in front of you does not elevate your argument to being as valid as the clearly written rules printed in the rule book.

[Hawkkf]

I have a side related question to this topic. When you wreck a vehicle it becomes difficult and dangerous terrain (as opposed to impassibe which makes more gaming sense to me). What happens when you explode a vehicle? As far as I can tell it just becomes a crater with a 5+ cover save and difficult terrain. How does it make sense that its not dangerous as well with all of the sharp bits of vehicle that were dangerous enough to possibly kill transported troops during the impact still lying around? Am I missing something in the rules that makes this dangerous terrain as well? Or do the sharp bits of the tank evaporate?

[Caitsidhe]

And that is a logical fallacy, also known as the balance fallacy. Since you're such a big fan of logic I'd suggest that you go read up on it.

Just because there are only two possible outcomes, it doesn't mean that the probability is a 50/50 split. Your inability to read, or refusal to read, the rule clearly in front of you does not elevate your argument to being as valid as the clearly written rules printed in the rule book.

This is Games Workshop we are talking about. There is, indeed, an equal chance of either of us being right. For all we know, there is an equal chance we are both wrong and the Faq will setup a conditional situation wherein you can assault under some circumstance and not others. The difference between you and I is that I don't have any bias affecting my judgement. I really don't care which they choose to endorse or even if they come up with some crazy conditional one. I just want it in the Faq so we can all move on. If you are right you can feel superior. If I am right I can do the Snoopy Dance. If we are both wrong, other people can have a good old time at our mutual expense. That is what I mean about more fun later. The higher you and I get on respective horses, the further we have to fall.

[Infidel]

I have a side related question to this topic. When you wreck a vehicle it becomes difficult and dangerous terrain (as opposed to impassibe which makes more gaming sense to me). What happens when you explode a vehicle? As far as I can tell it just becomes a crater with a 5+ cover save and difficult terrain. How does it make sense that its not dangerous as well with all of the sharp bits of vehicle that were dangerous enough to possibly kill transported troops during the impact still lying around? Am I missing something in the rules that makes this dangerous terrain as well? Or do the sharp bits of the tank evaporate?

That's represented by the fact that you take some hits when the vehicle explodes. Exploding shrapnels lose a lot of its killing power when it...well, stop moving, at which stage they're more just spiky bits of (largely) harmless metal flakes. There are certainly some concession for the rules there, otherwise I really wouldn't want to be next to an exploding banewolf...

[Infidel]

The difference between you and I is that I don't have any bias affecting my judgement.

It takes real guts (or serious delusion) to say this with a straight face, after all that RAW that you have blatantly ignored.

And further, counting on the potential fallability on the part of GW to make your argument work is not a good strategy. Hell, it's not really much of a strategy at all.

[Caitsidhe]

It takes real guts (or serious delusion) to say this with a straight face, after all that RAW that you have blatantly ignored.

And further, counting on the potential fallability on the part of GW to make your argument work is not a good strategy. Hell, it's not really much of a strategy at all.

Strategy? I don't have a strategy. Do you? Nothing you or I do will have any affect on the outcome of the Faq one way or the other. Do you honestly believe that your enthusiastic, borderline rabid posts on this subject every time it comes up are part of some larger campaign to get the result you want? My arguments are just that, arguments which I have supported to my own satisfaction. They can't win anything, nor can yours. The only thing we will see in time is which arguments (if either) hold water. I didn't, by the way, make any comment on the failings of GW. I commented on the fact that they can go any direction without warning. I do not judge their capricious nature as a "fail." Do you? I pointed out that for all we know light transports might turn into the Autobots after the Faq or grow wings. It is unlikely, but not impossible.

[Infidel]

They can't win anything, nor can yours.

Let others be the judge of that.

[Balerion]

This is Games Workshop we are talking about. There is, indeed, an equal chance of either of us being right.

This is simply untrue. I'm confident that if you went back through the history of FAQs and totaled up all the instances of GW ruling in favour of the RAW rather than the perceived RAI (or even the explicit RAI, such as in the case of Ogre wizard Ironfists and armour) you would find that they outnumber cases where the RAI are patched-in wholesale. Right now the RAW are clearly in support of prohibiting charges from an exploded vehicle. Therefore, if you want to speculate about the odds of either outcome, you need to favour the one that is currently defined by the RAW.

[skorczeny]

With contradictory accounts of GW staff stating what the rule is in this case, the only thing we have to fall back on are the RAW in the rule book (in my case the English rulebook).

Page 79: 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.

Clearly you cannot assault from an exploded vehicle. My enemy blows up my transport. In my next assault phase I cannot declare a charge. It sucks for me, but those are the rules. If it gets FAQ'd the other way - fine - but until then...

[DoctorTom]

The difference between you and I is that I don't have any bias affecting my judgement.

If you mean that actually reading the rules and not making stuff up counts as a bias, then I agree with you. The rules do say "their" next assault phase, and the opponent's assault phase isn't "their" phase, it's their opponent's. If reading that for what it says is a bias, there's many people here guilty of that.

[Mondobot]

"their" phase is quite a clear term. It means "their", not "the".

[Grimgormx]

Sorry guys, I havent finished the BRB.

If an assault vehicle exploded, can the troops that were in it assaut in their next assault phase? (Special rule for assault vehicles, or open toped like a truk)
if yes then
Why would troops dissembarked by an exploding Normal transport vehicle be able to assault in their next assault phase? (rhino, chimera or other regular closed vehicles)

[insectum7]

4. Precedent of the last three editions goes with being able to assault on your turn if your vehicle was destroyed on your opponent's turn.

Nope. In 4th Ed. you became "entangled", which meant "pinned" even for models that couldn't normally be pinned. No assault. Check your facts.

One of the reasons transports were popular in 5th was because they were no longer deathtraps. The 6th ed ruling is a partial rollback to 4th.


Edit. 4th ed BRB pg. 68 should you want to look it up