Epic crashes

[Brother Biskit]

This has been brought up in the past and I thought the answer was clear cut. If a fast transport moves flat out and is then wrecked or distroyed the unit being transported is removed as casualties.

 

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? A: They are removed as casualties.

This was brought up in a recent game against a Gray Knights player who was sending a Stormraven with a sick terminator unit inside 24" a turn without a care. His argument against loosing his unit lies with the description of a 'turn' as given in the 40k FAQ.

 

Q: What is meant when the term 'turn' is used? A: Whenever the word turn is used it means player turn. Otherwise it will clearly state game turn. In a complete game turn both players get a player turn. Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns.

The argument was that the Stormraven would only go down with all hands if it became immobilised or worse during his player turn. Esentialy this could only happen if he made a ramming move or a dangerous terrain check.

 

Technicaly I couldn't find a fault with his reasoning.

 

So can I go back to running my full Rhinos 18" without a care or have I missed something?

[BOBMAKENZIE]

This has been brought up in the past and I thought the answer was clear cut. If a fast transport moves flat out and is then wrecked or distroyed the unit being transported is removed as casualties.

 

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? A: They are removed as casualties.

This was brought up in a recent game against a Gray Knights player who was sending a Stormraven with a sick terminator unit inside 24" a turn without a care. His argument against loosing his unit lies with the description of a 'turn' as given in the 40k FAQ.

 

Q: What is meant when the term 'turn' is used? A: Whenever the word turn is used it means player turn. Otherwise it will clearly state game turn. In a complete game turn both players get a player turn. Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns.

The argument was that the Stormraven would only go down with all hands if it became immobilised or worse during his player turn. Esentialy this could only happen if he made a ramming move or a dangerous terrain check.

 

Technicaly I couldn't find a fault with his reasoning.

 

So can I go back to running my full Rhinos 18" without a care or have I missed something?

 

He is right it only applies in player turn.

[SnorriSnorrison]

This has been brought up in the past and I thought the answer was clear cut. If a fast transport moves flat out and is then wrecked or distroyed the unit being transported is removed as casualties.

 

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? A: They are removed as casualties.

This was brought up in a recent game against a Gray Knights player who was sending a Stormraven with a sick terminator unit inside 24" a turn without a care. His argument against loosing his unit lies with the description of a 'turn' as given in the 40k FAQ.

 

Q: What is meant when the term 'turn' is used? A: Whenever the word turn is used it means player turn. Otherwise it will clearly state game turn. In a complete game turn both players get a player turn. Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns.

The argument was that the Stormraven would only go down with all hands if it became immobilised or worse during his player turn. Esentialy this could only happen if he made a ramming move or a dangerous terrain check.

 

Technicaly I couldn't find a fault with his reasoning.

 

So can I go back to running my full Rhinos 18" without a care or have I missed something?

 

 

He was correct in doing so. The quote you provided explains this pretty well. So yes, you can move up your rhinos, ravens and razorbacks with full speed, just keep out of terrain. ;)

 

 

Snorri

 

edit: ninja'd ;)

[Brother Nathan]

yep. though id expect that to change next edititon again...

[matchbox]

I disagree. Think about it. If he claims a cover save from moving flat out then he is vulnerable to the effects. I you were going flat out in a car. Then someone hits you with a rocket what will happen? It's more about sportsmanship than how to manipulate the writing of the rules. I play against people who do this and tbh I hate it. It takes he fun out of what should be a fun GAME.

[Brother Theophantus]

I disagree. Think about it. If he claims a cover save from moving flat out then he is vulnerable to the effects. I you were going flat out in a car. Then someone hits you with a rocket what will happen? It's more about sportsmanship than how to manipulate the writing of the rules. I play against people who do this and tbh I hate it. It takes he fun out of what should be a fun GAME.

 

Ugh, not to be harsh but if you're in a Ford Focus and someone hits you with an rpg you're pretty much just as dead at 100mph as you would be in a car park. This isn't a case of manipulating the rules. Its the rules working exactly as intended. If moving flat out gave you a cover save against shooting but also made that shooting more dangerous thats not really a bonus is it as you get a plus but also a minus.

 

The intended drawback to flat out is the lack of shooting and deploying units being transported. Not the fact that you become an explosion wating to happen.

[Morticon]

I disagree. Think about it. If he claims a cover save from moving flat out then he is vulnerable to the effects. I you were going flat out in a car. Then someone hits you with a rocket what will happen? It's more about sportsmanship than how to manipulate the writing of the rules. I play against people who do this and tbh I hate it. It takes he fun out of what should be a fun GAME.

 

Matchbox, do you disagree with the way the rule is written or people's interpretation of it?

If its the former, then all good.

 

However, its pretty clear cut if its the latter.

 

 

There are a few oversights in this game that are very, very, very clear (eg: emergency disembarkation and its uselessness).

 

But while we're sure these things could change next edition, saying it takes the fun out of the game for you because others are playing by a rule, thats fairly clear, is a bit selfish no?

 

Calling someone a bad sportsman because theyre playing to what is written in the rule book is completely astounding and disturbingly hypocritical.

Its like calling someone a bad sport for not giving you a cover save on your vehicle because its not 50% obscured.

 

Am I misinterpreting what you're saying or what?

[Isryion]

There is a drawback to going flat out for a SR, though. if it is immobilized in the same game turn it is destroyed as well, correct? It's just that if it's on your opponent's turn, the troops inside are not killed.

 

 

Or did I read it wrong?

[AGPO]

From my interpretation what he seems to be saying is that playing a creative RAW interpretation in order to get a gaming advantage is being a bad sport, especially if there's a clear intent behind it, which in this case there clearly is.

[Black Memories]

I disagree. Think about it. If he claims a cover save from moving flat out then he is vulnerable to the effects. I you were going flat out in a car. Then someone hits you with a rocket what will happen? It's more about sportsmanship than how to manipulate the writing of the rules. I play against people who do this and tbh I hate it. It takes he fun out of what should be a fun GAME.

 

 

Me, personally--I would make an emergency disembarkation of the car and spare myself any harm. Then I'd probably use it's burning hulk as cover from further incoming enemy fire.

 

Most people would die though. Not sure it's a relevant example, or at least the right one to illustrate your point though. Cars vs RPGs is a lopsided match up.

[Black Memories]

From my interpretation what he seems to be saying is that playing a creative RAW interpretation in order to get a gaming advantage is being a bad sport, especially if there's a clear intent behind it, which in this case there clearly is.

 

 

What's creative about the guy's interpretation? It's pretty clear in the rules if you don't wreck your own vehicle via ramming or terrain then they can get out of the vehicle and not be dead. The down side is that immobilization rolls also destroy the vehicles (but not the personnel). Keep reading through the rules, its fairly easy to piece it together. Unless that vehicle that flew/drove fast is totally boxed in, when you blow it up, his guys can get out.

 

As far as justifying it in reality. Pilots are still able to eject from planes much of the time after the plane has sustained "crash worthy" damage (my own detailed damage scale in use here). Pilots generally don't fare so well when they smash their own planes into buildings or the ground.

 

It's not like the elite spare marines being transported don't know they're being shot at and aren't prepared to evacuate if necessary. They may, however, trust their pilots not to smash them undamaged into tall ruined buildings after the commander says "this is probably stupid, but..." and then die via pointless, risky maneuver while going extremely fast as they would be caught off guard by the sheer idiocy of their commander and his pilot and unable to disembark in time. What kind of dumb general would ever do that....Certainly not me.

 

Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.

[SevenExxes]

If a Stormraven moves flat out doesn't the unit disembarking have to use the Skies Of Blood rule?

[Crynn]

From my interpretation what he seems to be saying is that playing a creative RAW interpretation in order to get a gaming advantage is being a bad sport, especially if there's a clear intent behind it, which in this case there clearly is.

 

 

What's creative about the guy's interpretation? It's pretty clear in the rules if you don't wreck your own vehicle via ramming or terrain then they can get out of the vehicle and not be dead. The down side is that immobilization rolls also destroy the vehicles (but not the personnel). Keep reading through the rules, its fairly easy to piece it together. Unless that vehicle that flew/drove fast is totally boxed in, when you blow it up, his guys can get out.

 

As far as justifying it in reality. Pilots are still able to eject from planes much of the time after the plane has sustained "crash worthy" damage (my own detailed damage scale in use here). Pilots generally don't fare so well when they smash their own planes into buildings or the ground.

 

It's not like the elite spare marines being transported don't know they're being shot at and aren't prepared to evacuate if necessary. They may, however, trust their pilots not to smash them undamaged into tall ruined buildings after the commander says "this is probably stupid, but..." and then die via pointless, risky maneuver while going extremely fast as they would be caught off guard by the sheer idiocy of their commander and his pilot and unable to disembark in time. What kind of dumb general would ever do that....Certainly not me.

 

Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.

 

+1

 

It is completely unreasonable to suggest that someone is a bad sport for playing by the rules. I personally don't even feel there is much of a case for this not being the RAI, the post above shows an example of the logic behind the rule.

 

As for disembarking via 'skies of blood', this would only happen if you disembarked during your own player turn, not if you were shot out of the sky and forced to disembark in the following players turn.

 

Regards,

 

Crynn

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Keep in mind part of what this is here for is to stop the lolful last turn objective grab maneuver alot of Eldar players use. Jumping a fast moving skimmer filled with guys onto every objective. Anything that crashes simply poops out a squad that can sit on the objective instead. Now that squad dies making it a somewhat riskier manuever.

[matchbox]

Just read the rulebook and it says

 

Shooting at Skimmers.

 

Skimmers moving at high speed are very difficult to hit. A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last movement phase counts as obscured. (4+ cover save) when fired at.

 

On the other hand, having your engines stall whenflying at speed has its consequences, so a skimmer that is immobilised immediately crashes and is destroyed ( wrecked) if it moved flat out in its last turn.

 

Emphasis on the LAST turn part. So i was right, if it gets immobilised from shooting in the following players turn then it is wrecked and the unit is lost.

[JamesI]

Just read the rulebook and it says

 

Shooting at Skimmers.

 

Skimmers moving at high speed are very difficult to hit. A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last movement phase counts as obscured. (4+ cover save) when fired at.

 

On the other hand, having your engines stall whenflying at speed has its consequences, so a skimmer that is immobilised immediately crashes and is destroyed ( wrecked) if it moved flat out in its last turn.

 

Emphasis on the LAST turn part. So i was right, if it gets immobilised from shooting in the following players turn then it is wrecked and the unit is lost.

Nope. Still not right.

 

a skimmer moving fast that gets immobilized in the next turn is destroyed yes, but the guys can get out.

 

Guys are only destroyed if the vehicle is destroyed the same turn (and by rules turn always means player turn unless stated otherwise). This could happen by moving into terrain, attempting to tank shock and getting killed.

[Leonaides]

or a scattering blast template...

[JamesI]

or a scattering blast template...

Yeah, I had forgotten that possibility.

[Isryion]

Just read the rulebook and it says

 

Shooting at Skimmers.

 

Skimmers moving at high speed are very difficult to hit. A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last movement phase counts as obscured. (4+ cover save) when fired at.

 

On the other hand, having your engines stall whenflying at speed has its consequences, so a skimmer that is immobilised immediately crashes and is destroyed ( wrecked) if it moved flat out in its last turn.

 

Emphasis on the LAST turn part. So i was right, if it gets immobilised from shooting in the following players turn then it is wrecked and the unit is lost.

 

James explained it, but here's the FAQ (quoted from previous post in the thread):

If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? A: They are removed as casualties.

 

Note the difference. Emphasis is on SAME turn, not LAST. Also, The rule you quoted does not have anything to do with the passengers.

[BTmaster]

Just read the rulebook and it says

 

Shooting at Skimmers.

 

Skimmers moving at high speed are very difficult to hit. A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last movement phase counts as obscured. (4+ cover save) when fired at.

 

On the other hand, having your engines stall whenflying at speed has its consequences, so a skimmer that is immobilised immediately crashes and is destroyed ( wrecked) if it moved flat out in its last turn.

 

Emphasis on the LAST turn part. So i was right, if it gets immobilised from shooting in the following players turn then it is wrecked and the unit is lost.

 

I think your absolutley right with this and anyone who says different is manipulating the rule. The reference in the FAQ is for page 70. Page 70 absolutley talks about the effects in a players turn. In page 71 it dicusses what happens if destroy after moving flat out in the the players previous turn. His turn, the one he just had. No one is ever going to win this arguement with me or convince me that allowing occupants of a skimmer to survive after it moved flat and it shot down. Just plain plumb dumb. I won't play with somene who uses the rule like that. if that means I don't play WH40k oh well.

[Morollan]

Just read the rulebook and it says

 

Shooting at Skimmers.

 

Skimmers moving at high speed are very difficult to hit. A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last movement phase counts as obscured. (4+ cover save) when fired at.

 

On the other hand, having your engines stall whenflying at speed has its consequences, so a skimmer that is immobilised immediately crashes and is destroyed ( wrecked) if it moved flat out in its last turn.

 

Emphasis on the LAST turn part. So i was right, if it gets immobilised from shooting in the following players turn then it is wrecked and the unit is lost.

 

I think your absolutley right with this and anyone who says different is manipulating the rule. The reference in the FAQ is for page 70. Page 70 absolutley talks about the effects in a players turn. In page 71 it dicusses what happens if destroy after moving flat out in the the players previous turn. His turn, the one he just had. No one is ever going to win this arguement with me or convince me that allowing occupants of a skimmer to survive after it moved flat and it shot down. Just plain plumb dumb. I won't play with somene who uses the rule like that. if that means I don't play WH40k oh well.

 

1) Nice thread necro

2) You're entitled to think whatever you want but in this case you're wrong. Complaining that you won't play against someone who "uses the rule like that" is like saying you won't play against someone who rolls against their BS when shooting a weapon.

[JamesI]

As the thread necroing adds nothing to the thread, no new facts or FAQ, just an opinion that goes against RAW, this thread is closed.

 

If people want to resume the arguing over this rule, take it to the Official rules forum.