SKimmers that are transports

[BTmaster]

Many believe skimmer's that are also transports that are shot down don't destroy the occupants of the transport. This is great interpretation for DE, IG, Storm Raven users and anyone else who uses skimmers flat out. It's just a poor poor interpretation in my opinion.

 

Ok first let's talk about Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook Update 1.4. You have three sections. Errata, Amendments and FAQ. If you need their definition please reference the update. In the Errata the only reference to skimmers is ramming on page 71. In Ammendments there are no references. Now let's get to the meat and patatoes of this. The FAQ.

 

In the FAQ on page 1 it discusses "The Turn" Well unless otherwise specified a turn always refers to a "Players" turn. Next on page 6 there a reference for Skimmers.

 

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as

it moved flat out what happens to any embarked

models? (p70)

A: They are removed as casualties.

 

Hmm, "turn"= "Players Turn" ie I moved flat out and ended my move in difficult or dangerous terrain.

 

Note that the referrence is for page 70. Page 70 discusses transports and the effects on their passengers for different things. When they can embark/disembark etc etc etc. Page 71 covers Skimmers and effects of different things to include moving flat out. In the reference for skimmers moving flat out it says they get a 4+ cover save but if its wreck or destroyed and it moved flat out in its previouse movement phase then it occupants are destroyed as well..

 

My point being the reference in the FAQ is for page 70 and not page 71. Page 71 spells out what happens to occupants of transports that move flat out in their previous turn if the transport is destroyed. So why are people saying that they aren't. In my opinion the reference is because its not covered what happens if in your turn you move your transport flat out and end in diffcult terrain and fail. That makes a heck of alot more sense then a skimmer getting shot down after is goes zoom zoom but because its your turn and not his he just takes a series of dangerous terrain test. Bottom line the reference in the FAQ is for page 70 not for page 71. Page 71 covers affects for skimmer moving flat out that are transports and what happens to the occupants.

 

There plenty of posts about this but the FAQ references PAGE 70 not page 71 and page 71 says the occupants DIE

 

 

Page 70 is for your player turn page 71 is for your opponents player turn and the affects.

[Seahawk]

Someone is making it needlessly complicated. The FAQ was not needed except for the braindead, as all it does is repeat what the BRB says.

 

Events occurring on the same turn

Scenario A: Skimmer moves flat out, stops over difficult terrain. Rolls a 1 on the difficult terrain test. The skimmer is immobilized, and because it moved flat out, it is then counted as a wreck (p.71). Because passengers may not disembark from a vehicle that is moving flat out in that Movement Phase (p.70), the passengers are then immediately destroyed under this scenario.

 

Events occurring on different turns

Scenario B: Skimmer moves flat out, gets immobilized by enemy. The vehicle is still a wreck (p.71), but because it is a new turn (p.9), the passengers can disembark normally (because it is not the same Movement Phase as when it moved), only having to take a normal pinning check (p.67).

 

 

[edit] Also, please do not use any chat/leet speak- ppl = people.

[JamesI]

I still wonder why this argument never came up when DE and Eldar and IG did it. Never until Storm Ravens existed...

 

Seahawk describes it perfectly.

[thade]

I still wonder why this argument never came up when DE and Eldar and IG did it. Never until Storm Ravens existed...

You know...me too.

 

Seahawk describes it perfectly.

Yep.

[Elric the Silvercoat]

Well I feel better about moving flat out now.

[Dan VK]

I cannot find a question, so I am going to address the main assertion.

 

Note that the referrence is for page 70. Page 70 discusses transports and the effects on their passengers for different things. When they can embark/disembark etc etc etc. Page 71 covers Skimmers and effects of different things to include moving flat out. In the reference for skimmers moving flat out it says they get a 4+ cover save but if its wreck or destroyed and it moved flat out in its previouse movement phase then it occupants are destroyed as well..

It does not states any such thing:

 

"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that Movement phase." BRB page 70

 

"On the other hand, having your engines stall when flying at high 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." BRB page 71

 

 

Seahawk wraps it up quite nicely, but I have a compulsion for providing quotes. :D

[dswanick]

I still wonder why this argument never came up when DE and Eldar and IG did it. Never until Storm Ravens existed...

 

Seahawk describes it perfectly.

Actually, it has - in several venues.

 

For example : I've recently become a regular at my LGS Thursday night open 40k gaming. The group here was playing it that moving flat out gave the 4+ cover save until the start of the next turn for the owning player and therefore the squad being unable to disembark lasted that long, also. I whipped out my hardcopy of FAQ 1.4, showed them were GW clearly specified that "a turn" = "a player turn" and not "a game turn", walked them through the RAW, and therfore it didn't work the way they thought. The store manager promptly house ruled it back to the way they've been playing all along. :D

[Something Wycked]

Seahawk wraps it up quite nicely, but I have a compulsion for providing quotes. ;)

Which is always helpful, Dan. I know I appreciate it! :)

 

The store manager promptly house ruled it back to the way they've been playing all along.

:D I wonder if he checked with everyone to get their feelings on it before acting.

 

As long as we're all on the same sheet of music and we like the sounds produced, I guess we'll be okay :)

[Dan VK]

The store manager promptly house ruled it back to the way they've been playing all along. :)

Let me guess--Play the Game? :D

[thade]

I like when you guys post book quotes. I can't really bust out my rule book while I'm at work. :D My cubicle is "open topped". Crappy armor value...but at least I can launch assault out of it.

[Seahawk]

:D Hey, at least I provided page numbers. Hunting for it and reading it in your own book (when you get the chance) gets you to learn it better. :)

[dswanick]

:) I wonder if he checked with everyone to get their feelings on it before acting.

Well, the only one not arguing with me about it was the DE player I started out "educating". He was so excited by the idea of being able to Flat Out with his Raiders...

The store manager promptly house ruled it back to the way they've been playing all along. :)

Let me guess--Play the Game? :D

No, actually, the other one. ;)

[maturin]

To me, this is an example of poor rules writing. It always bothered me (and I play with storm/scouts) that I benefitted from a 4+ save from going faaaaassssst all throughout both turns, but only suffered the downsides during my turn. It just doesn't seem fair - after all, this is supposed to "simulate" war, and both players actions are supposed to happen somewhat simultaneously.

 

In my local group, we play the "fun" way. But if I ever play an opponent with transport skimmers I always ask and play however they wish to.

[Hellios]

To me, this is an example of poor rules writing. It always bothered me (and I play with storm/scouts) that I benefitted from a 4+ save from going faaaaassssst all throughout both turns, but only suffered the downsides during my turn. It just doesn't seem fair - after all, this is supposed to "simulate" war, and both players actions are supposed to happen somewhat simultaneously.

 

In my local group, we play the "fun" way. But if I ever play an opponent with transport skimmers I always ask and play however they wish to.

 

I don't see this as much of a problem as there are not that many fast skimmer transports. Dark Eldar and Eldar being the two armies it has a major effect on (Although various marines and guard as well now have some stake...). Eldar have an upgrade that stops them from being destroyed when they do this and at the cost of Eldar transports they should get that for free... Dark Eldar have vehicles that will go down to the standard fire arms of other races and do not enjoy being on foot... Both of these armies would have a bad time if they lost the guys inside as well as the tank as they tend to rely on speed or their transports to survive.

 

However killing everyone on your own turn stops the stupid DE suicide rams for first turn assault rubbish.

[Dan VK]

However killing everyone on your own turn stops the stupid DE suicide rams for first turn assault rubbish.

:blink:

[Seahawk]

In my local group, we play the "fun" way.

That's entirely subjective. To me, the "fun" aspect is envisioning it banking to a near stop to change direction at the end of a going flat out, at which point it gets nailed and simply spirals down, resulting in the fair and right rules that we do have.

[Spacefrisian]

I still wonder why this argument never came up when DE and Eldar and IG did it. Never until Storm Ravens existed...

 

Seahawk describes it perfectly.

 

 

Before that rule was instated by GW it wasnt much used, used it on some occassions with my Dark eldar old dex (10 wyches comming at yuo 1st turn is scary). However when the new dex came out so came those who thought to have a new dirty trick... GW changed that.

[thade]

The way I see it, if Transports that moved Flat Out! were in danger of losing all of their occupants when getting shot down - in addition to being blown up themselves - we'd be back to the days of Transports being death traps and nobody would use them. It's a very harsh punishment to lose two units for the price of one.

 

The burden of "Why and how?" are on us as much as GW. Perhaps the transport moves its fastest during our turn and is slowing down during their turn (as it approaches where we moved it to)...and it's only in real danger of a catastrophic event when at those higher speeds.

[maturin]

The way I see it, if Transports that moved Flat Out! were in danger of losing all of their occupants when getting shot down - in addition to being blown up themselves - we'd be back to the days of Transports being death traps and nobody would use them. It's a very harsh punishment to lose two units for the price of one.

 

The burden of "Why and how?" are on us as much as GW. Perhaps the transport moves its fastest during our turn and is slowing down during their turn (as it approaches where we moved it to)...and it's only in real danger of a catastrophic event when at those higher speeds.

 

I see "my" version as a balanced trade off - you get the cover save, but you risk the downside as well. It's your choice whether or not to hit the gas pedal. If you want to play it safe, then go slower and hug cover. ;) Transports are still much, much more durable than 4th ed - enough so that I don't think that it automatically makes transports death traps. I do think if GW were to play this way the cover save ought to be 3+ and not 4+ to compensate for the risk...

 

I suppose we can all rationalize this however we want, as Thade points out. To me, if you're going fast enough to get a cover save when your opponent shoots, you're going fast enough to turn everyone to jelly when your ride hits the ground. Even a space marine's internal organs can't defy the laws of physics...but that's just my own personal quibble I suppose. ;) As I said, I'm happy to play it however my opponent wants.

[thade]

They could have interpreted it that way, but the RAW is pretty clear they decided against it. I bet it's so more people would by and use fast skimmer models. <3

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

I still wonder why this argument never came up when DE and Eldar and IG did it. Never until Storm Ravens existed...

 

Seahawk describes it perfectly.

It did. I even had a thread going on it. Or at least a side-show in a greater thread.

 

What really got my goat before the FAQ spelled out the very words of the BBR were the players who insisted that when the FAQ mentioned "destroyed in the same turn" it had to mean game turn (it was the only logical thing, it was obviously what they intended, etc etc etc), contrary to what the BBR said. When the FAQ finally repeated the words in the BBR I came within an inch of rubbing their faces into the printed-out FAQ.