Black Templar Raiders

[Ashe Darke]

I was playing a Templar player today and he was surprised that my guys could assault out of my Raiders, he said he couldn't according to his codex.

 

Now I've looked at this and it says it has assault ramps but I can't see anywhere in the codex where the rules for them are explained. I assume it was in the 4th Ed rulebook but it's not in the 5th Ed one. So without an explanation from either book can they actually assault out using RAW or am I just blind and missing the right page?

[JamesI]

By RAW, no they can not assault out of them (unless I missed the assault ramp rules in the rulebook. It was in the 4th edition rulebook).

 

I don't believe that was ever added to the Black Templars FAQ, I can check later.

 

(To be clear, this is entirely a RAW answer. I would never hold a Black Templar player to this, just like I expected the same coutesy over the issue of my rhinos not having doors in the old Blood Angels codex)

[Mordekiem]

By RAW templar cannot assault out of their raiders. However, this is almost as stupid as saying thier terminators don't have terminator armor.

 

Don't harsh the BT players because GW was too stupid to put a rule where it belongs.

[Ashe Darke]

He was the one who said he couldn't assault :)

 

I'll tell him next time I see him that it's ok for him to do it. He's not really a rules guy, being more about just playing and having a laugh, so I tend to ease up on the rules lawyering but for other more serious games it's good to know.

 

EDIT: No doors on your Rhinos? That's hilarious.

[Cedric]

The German Black Templar FAQ has errata amending that particular oversight, giving the Raiders their intended Assault Vehicle status.

[Spacefrisian]

Weird my codex states it as having an assault ramp.

[Ashe Darke]

Yeah but nowhere in the codex or rulebook does it explain what an assault ramp is/does. Of course we know from other codexes/rulebook editions. But to someone without that knowledge they're just going to think it's a normal hatch with a different name.

[Isiah]

Hmm interesting topic. The BT seem to br cropping up a lot recently as topic in the OR. Seems their book is as out of step with current C:SM same name wargear/equipment as that of the DA :tu:.

 

Cheers

I

[Mordekiem]

BT Codex is one of the oldest codexes and the oldest of the 4th edition codexes.

[Brother-Flame]

check the land raider entry

Frag Assault Launvhers: The front of

a Land Raider Crusader is studded with

explosive charges designed to hurl

shrapnel at the enemy as the troops

inside charge out. Any unit that charges

into close combat on the same turn as it

disembarks from the Crusader counts

as having frag grenades

 

Thus implying that you can disembark and assault in the same turn, as that is what it mentions.

[Ashe Darke]

Yeah, and that was when the book was released when 4th Ed was being used and assault ramps were in the rulebook, meaning you could assault out of them. But we're playing 5th Ed now and assault ramps are not in the rulebook. RAW they can't do it, not that I said I was gonna disallow the guy from doing that in future games anyway.

[DasPanzerIstUber]

I quoted the German FAQ in our unofficial BT FAQ here.

 

You are allowed to assault out of any vehicle if it remains stationary, and that is why the Frag Assault Launcher entry doesn't solve the problem unfortunately.

[Grey Mage]

It might be RAW, but I think this is one of those times a TO should step in and say "no, it works like this".

 

There is no honest reason to not allow BT to use an assault ramp as normal.

[Frosty the Pyro]

check the land raider entry

Frag Assault Launvhers: The front of

a Land Raider Crusader is studded with

explosive charges designed to hurl

shrapnel at the enemy as the troops

inside charge out. Any unit that charges

into close combat on the same turn as it

disembarks from the Crusader counts

as having frag grenades

 

Thus implying that you can disembark and assault in the same turn, as that is what it mentions.

 

To play Tzeench's advocate, you can disembark and assault from all vehicels in the same turn, so long as the vehicle doesnt move. Frag assault launchers in no way allow, or even imply the ability to assault out of a vehicle that has moved.

[Mordekiem]

It might be RAW, but I think this is one of those times a TO should step in and say "no, it works like this".

 

There is no honest reason to not allow BT to use an assault ramp as normal.

I've played with my LRC and against other BT with LRC and the issue never come up. In fact most people also assume BT have the new PotMS and all the other goodies as well. I had one guy argue that the PotMS does not work that way! ;) I did not mind. BS 4 is alot better than BS 2.

[Angrypantz]

It boils down to being a douche or not. I personally would say, It's a fraking land raider, why can't you assault out of it. Everyone else can. The fact that there is a massive oversite from GW is not the point. It only comes a problem at tournaments and lets be honest if they aren't letting you use the model you spent £35 and 250pts on properly then don't go again. Play in the spirit of the game.

 

*I hate typing in the dark. Stupid spelling mistakes

[Marshal Laeroth]

The German Black Templar FAQ has errata amending that particular oversight, giving the Raiders their intended Assault Vehicle status.

 

I concur. This FAQ gave us our assault vehicle status. I'm sure they are just being lazy by not updating the English version of it. Either that, or they plan on re-releasing them soon which would make the FAQ obsolete anyway. :D

[thade]

Guys. It's a Land Raider. In every codex they are identical and the models are all identical and they have the same carrying capacity and armament options and...It's a Land Raider. Yes, I'd allow a BT player to assault out of it. In fact, my entire club does and we've never pointed out that the BT codex doesn't allow it. Given that they are pretty melee-centric, that seems mind-boggling that it could have been on purpose. Also, GW's rule goons put "assault ramp" in there. And I think we all know what that does. =P

 

This is a good example of how rules lawyering can make the game less fun. Allow BT players to use LRs like the rest of us do.

[Grey Mage]

Thats not true Thade. GK Landraiders are different than others- example being their assault cannons are very different. BT Landraiders cost less than normal for the same equipment, sans assault ramp. Blood Angel LRs can deepstrike. C:SM Landraiders magically hold more people.

 

Not that I believe it should be played that way, but to say that theyre all identical is a mistake of epic proportions.

[Brother_Kaelgrim]

I would say that considering there is a FAQ on the issue, granted its in German, should be enough to prove to any opponent that one can assault out of a BT landraider same as any other. Least thats my view.

[Grey Mage]

I would agree, but Ill note that many disagreed on the same kind of issue with the old 5th FAQ

[thade]

GM: I don't necessarily disagree with you. In fact, I don't at all disagree with you on a technical stand point. But, for sake of argument...

 

BA LRs can deepstrike...and they have a listed special rule for it.

GK LRs have different guns, and their rules are written out clearly for it.

BT's are cheaper, and that's clearly listed.

C:SM LR carrying capacity also clearly listed.

 

They *all* have Assault Ramps, which is what I meant, really. All of the other differences are spelled out, not omitted. Three of them explain what the assault ramps do. Were it the case that the BT assault ramp worked differently (a la the weird guns on the GK LRCs) ... brace yourself as I step into a mindfield ... wouldn't they have said as much?

 

Yea, I feel like I have little ground to stand on here (between mines) but I feel pretty strongly that anybody who might try to keep a BT player from using his LRs as they're meant to be used (as assault vehicles) is in the wrong.

[Grey Mage]

Except my point was that the GK Assault Cannon is not the same as everyone elses assault cannon. Just like the DA/BT SS is not the same as the the other three SM Codices.

 

And I agree with you, I would never keep a BT from assaulting out of his LR because of this minor oversight- that is cleared up in a foreign FAQ if not in the english one- but I can understand people raising a couple eyebrows over it too.