Assaulting from an exploded vehicle.

[Infidel]

I don't see the issue, not sure we really need a FAQ to clear this up really.

Yes. Very much yes.

The only reason I felt so strongly about this problem is that I've had this argument at least once a week since the start of 6th, whether I'm just there to model/paint or actually play. The conversation would generally go down like this:

Me: No, and here's the page that says you can't do that.
Them: But the internet said this
Me: No, and here's the page that says you can't do that.
Them: But the internet said something else
Me: No, and here's the page that says the internet is wrong
Them: Geez, fine. We'll play it your way, rule lawyer. But it'd be really nice to have a FAQ on the matter to clear it up.

Why do we need the FAQ? All the rules are right there in plain english and there is nothing you can even argue from the RAI perspective. If you can't assault out of a stationary vehicle in this edition, there is no point expecting that you'll be able to assault out of a destroyed vehicle.

Did we suddenly lose 20 IQ points when we transitionsed from 5th to 6th?

[DoctorTom]

I agree with you that we shouldn't need a FAQ on it. The problem comes from people misreading "their subsequent assault turn" as "the subsequent assault turn", and ignoring that they mean two entirely different things.

[murgel2006]

I agree with you that we shouldn't need a FAQ on it. The problem comes from people misreading "their subsequent assault turn" as "the subsequent assault turn", and ignoring that they mean two entirely different things.

Correct.
I do think it is quite clear. If it says their subsequent you can not assault, if it says the subsequent you can.

There is not even a country problem really as it is logical that a game will always base any rules interpretation in the native language.
So yes in Germany you can.
I do not really understand why you would want to assault? As you start in difficult/dangerous terrain and will have I-Step 1 in combat. Meaning you will have lost quite some models already....

[orkmiester]

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 is where the rule falls over and causes confusion...

this piece refers to unit actions in "your" turn when you disembark a unit.

fair enough...

now the kicker in my opinion (i'll explain my positon on the rule later on) is that when you take a look at the effects upon units when their transport is wrecked/explodes, nowhere does it state solidly that when the unit can next be moved by the owning player that they cannot assault etc

now if this ever happens to come up at the club i attend there will no doubt be a "debate" and i'll have to go on the general consensus, whatever that maybe i take a shot and say that it will boil down too "if it dosen't say you cannot do it you can.."

just my take

[Radium]

"if it dosen't say you cannot do it you can.."

But 40k is a permissive ruleset, so that doesn't work at all.

[shadekiller]

@infidel: Well, ok, I see your point. If it really cause that much debate amongst gaming groups, no matter if it's obvious or not, a conflict should be FAQed I guess.

@orkmiester: in fact that's the opposite, it's a permissive ruleset (like all other games TBH...) so it must say explicitely that you can. IMHO it's quite clear cut, models [...] but cannot declare a charge in their subsequent assault phase. That mean : models (those that disembarked) [...] cannot declare a charge (obviously can't charge but when..?) in their subsequent assault phase (ha there it is, in the said model next assault phase. But when does it occur? in it's owner assault phase since the model cannot act in the opponent assault phase, only react)

[orkmiester]

@infidel: Well, ok, I see your point. If it really cause that much debate amongst gaming groups, no matter if it's obvious or not, a conflict should be FAQed I guess.

@orkmiester: in fact that's the opposite, it's a permissive ruleset (like all other games TBH...) so it must say explicitely that you can. IMHO it's quite clear cut, models [...] but cannot declare a charge in their subsequent assault phase. That mean : models (those that disembarked) [...] cannot declare a charge (obviously can't charge but when..?) in their subsequent assault phase (ha there it is, in the said model next assault phase. But when does it occur? in it's owner assault phase since the model cannot act in the opponent assault phase, only react)

it maybe so but knowing my fellow club members as i do...

in any case an FAQ would put a stop to the debate properly, as when i've read it i've come the same conclusion as on here but it could have been far better written in my opinion.

[Infidel]

in any case an FAQ would put a stop to the debate properly, as when i've read it i've come the same conclusion as on here but it could have been far better written in my opinion.

I agree that it can probably be better written, since all it takes is a simple clarification, but i thought "their subsequent assault phase" rather than "the subsequent assault phase" is pretty clear.

Well, obviously not.

[dawnofthedead]

I called GW customer service multiple times today about this. I was told the same thing. If you have to disembark from a vehicle for any reason in your opponents turn then you can assault in your turn with that squad. And yes I know that people don't trust GW customer support. And I know that people will say that is not how it is written. But I got the same answer every time I ask from different service guys. They should know since they represent the company and the game. Take it for what it is worth. Maybe call for yourself.

[Blinder]

Tales like that are pretty much exactly why people don't trust GW customer support. Did they provide an explanation as to why they were advising against the wording in the rulebook? Also, there is a very large difference between should know, and do know. It might be fun to give them a call, though, if only to walk them through the wording and see if they can do any better than, "well that's what the first guy to answer someone said so that's what we're going with."

[dawnofthedead]

They did provide one. Call and interrogate them if you want. I can read the rule both ways. But that is just me. I'm not trying to tell you how to play it. Just the info I got. As I said take it for what it is worth.

[MiyamatoMusashi]

They did provide one.

Really? What was it?

As I said take it for what it is worth.

Pretty much nothing I'm afraid.

[dawnofthedead]

This is why I don't post. People can be pretty rude.

[Mr_Rose]

This is why I don't post. People can be pretty rude.

Yes, one of the rudest things people do is fail to answer politely worded questions by responding in a dismissive manner, or by misrepresenting the original question.

[shadekiller]

hey hey heeeeey, calm down there is no need to respond so harshly and especially if your doing it to a newcomer. It isn't fun at all and don't encourage discussion.

[Infidel]

This is why I don't post. People can be pretty rude.

I agree that the attitude is not condusive to discussion, but honestly, "GW staff says" holds as much weight in a rule argument as the note from a fortune cookie. GW staff has repeatedly and consistently provided answers that runs contrary to explicit RAW and even their own published FAQs.

I'm still confused why it can be read any other way. The logic of "their subsequent X phase" occuring in the opponent's turn is so mind-boggling. Think about it, when do you do the whole assaulty business? When it's your assault phase, you declare charge, roll charge distance etc. Do you get to do that in your opponent's turn? No. Can my passengers disembarking out of a destroyed transport shoot since it's also their subsequent shooting phase? No.

How is there any allowance for rule confusion here when it's all spelled out for you?

[Caitsidhe]

I agree that the attitude is not condusive to discussion, but honestly, "GW staff says" holds as much weight in a rule argument as the note from a fortune cookie. GW staff has repeatedly and consistently provided answers that runs contrary to explicit RAW and even their own published FAQs.

I'm still confused why it can be read any other way. The logic of "their subsequent X phase" occuring in the opponent's turn is so mind-boggling. Think about it, when do you do the whole assaulty business? When it's your assault phase, you declare charge, roll charge distance etc. Do you get to do that in your opponent's turn? No. Can my passengers disembarking out of a destroyed transport shoot since it's also their subsequent shooting phase? No.

How is there any allowance for rule confusion here when it's all spelled out for you?

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. 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. So let's look at the FACTS:

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

[Blinder]

(I'll admit to and apologise for the harsh tone, it was meant more for GW's "experts" rather than anyone in this thread)

However,

1. As noted above, if anyone's managed to get an explanation out of them (rather than just "do it this way"), let's have it. Bonus points if anyone manages to get them to fess up regarding if their service department actually went and got the writers to lay out what they meant and you believe them. Unfortunately, customer support is pretty well known for providing nonsensical answers (not just the answers people don't want to hear, but answers that flat out confuse *everyone*). I'll grant that if you do turn to GW's hotline for a ruling, whatever they say is the ruling you get.

2. This is a set of rules written in English and translated to German. I think it's actually the Germans (and speakers of any other language where the translation doesn't carry the same meaning as the original) who should be most intent upon having an official clarification issued (i.e. FAQ).

3. The chart lists penalties, not the normal state of affairs, thus it is not terribly relevant.

4. Precedent of the last three editions was based upon being allowed to assault out of a transport on your turn. If anything, those rulings reinforce the fact that you *cannot* assault the turn after your transport is exploded, those which I were involved with were based upon the fact that units getting out of a transport that hadn't moved were allowed to assault, and it's hard for a blown up transport to move. Now you can't assault if the first thing you do is get the unit out of the transport, the whole rationale of why it was possible previously is invalid.

So, really the *only* substantial reason provided in those points is for people who refer the question to GW, and is currently being presented solely on their status as publisher, not on any informed clarification coming from said publisher.

Meanwhile, the word "their" is, in fact, a quite significant support for an argument about the meaning of the sentence in which it appears. It is the word printed in the book and its usage is perfectly correct and not at all awkward, so there is no reason to doubt it should be treated as the correct word with the correct meaning (unlike some other areas where there is a grammar-based argument about what is really meant). There is no implication, there is the very unambiguous construct of, "their next assault phase." The rule applies to disembarking, which is the stated means by which models of a unit in a transport are placed on the board in all circumstances, including the destruction of the transport. The only thing people are trying to construe is that you don't always disembark (exploded transport), and that argument seems to be considered fairly weak based on the emphasis being placed on "precedent" and possibly erroneous translations.

[Caitsidhe]

I think most people agree, however, that a Faq is required no matter how the rule pans out. Clearly evidence going either way has been presented and no one should feel the least bit silly or that their opinion is unsupported. The sooner they clarify with a Faq the better.

[Pandiano]

I called GW customer service multiple times today about this. I was told the same thing. If you have to disembark from a vehicle for any reason in your opponents turn then you can assault in your turn with that squad. And yes I know that people don't trust GW customer support. And I know that people will say that is not how it is written. But I got the same answer every time I ask from different service guys. They should know since they represent the company and the game. Take it for what it is worth. Maybe call for yourself.

Or read translations. The german book clearly states that it is "the" following assault phase and every official person called on this translation matter answers (to me anyway) "was corrected in the translated versions, english has a typo". Has someone other translations to verify this?