Stormlord question

[DarkAngeal]

Hi folks,

In escalation it states that "The Stormlord is treated as

Open-topped for embarking and

disembarking purposes. The +1 damage

modifier for Open-topped vehicles does not

apply to a Stormlord."

My question is, does that give it "assault vehicle" or just allow disembarking to happen from any point on the hull?

[WarriorFish]

The Assault Vehicle rule is applied to Open-topped vehicles, but there's no direct mention of disembarking as part of that. So if it's only treated as Open-topped for embarking and disembarking then it doesn't gain the Assault Vehicle benefit from what I can see.

[march10k]

WF probably has it right, the idea of a stormlord as an assault vehicle is silly (and assault vehicles usually have an assault ramp that drops from a hatch in the front of the vehicle).  However, it would have been helpful of GW to finish the [REDACTED BY INQUISITOR KALMOTH] rules text and explicitly state that assault vehicle doesn't apply, since they did go halfway and specify that the +1 on the damage table doesn't apply...after all, if it's good enough that "only treated as open-topped for embarking and disembarking" by implication doesn't include the assault vehicle rule, then why in the world is there any need to waste text to specify that the +1 doesn't apply?!?

[Emicus]

Open topped disembarking is what allows you to charge though. 'Assault vehicle' isn't necessary, just a rule to add to non-open topped vehicles to let shiz charge out of them.

 

I think they wanted to specify that its a big-ass tank and won't explode easy

[WarriorFish]

Open-topped vehicles gain the Assault Vehicle rule yes, but that's outside of the embark/disembark purposes as by the rules outside of this part of the movement phase it isn't Open-topped. That's where the Assault Vehicle rules come into play.

[DarkAngeal]

I reposted this in official rules since there doesn't seem to be any pre-determined answer. Thanks folks (if mods can lock this thread there would be no love lost from me)

[SW1]

You can assault out of an open topped vehicle and your disembarking when you assault out of the vehicle. Where's the issue?

[WarriorFish]

You disembark in the movement phase not the assault phase which is one of the main points. The OR topic can be found here.

[cypherthefallenangel]

Hi folks,

In escalation it states that "The Stormlord is treated as

Open-topped for embarking and

disembarking purposes. The +1 damage

modifier for Open-topped vehicles does not

apply to a Stormlord."

My question is, does that give it "assault vehicle" or just allow disembarking to happen from any point on the hull?

The stormlord has all the benefits of an opentopped vehicle with none of the drawbacks. Being opentopped means you can disembark from any part of the hull and you may assault the same turn. Just like ork and dark elder vehicles but no bonuses against it for damage. It's actually better than most assault vehicles because of this.

[march10k]

That makes sense to me, but the GW phrasing is screwy.  It's not unreasonable to read it this way: In the movement phase, when embarkation and debarkation take place, it is treated as open-topped, ergo, the entire hull is a fair point of entry/exit.  Then comes the shooting phase, it's no longer open-topped.  Then, in the assault phase, nope, still not open-topped, so no charge?  It would have been so simple for GQ to just say "the stormlord is an open-topped vehicle.  However, being a super-heavy vehicle, it down not suffer the usual +1 on the damage table.  Why is the "for embarkation and debarkation purposes" language necessary at all, if it's open topped for every purpose except taking damage?!?

[Emicus]

Because open topped only affects two things. Disembarkation and exploding easier. Both are mentioned specifically, this is actually one of gws most ironclad rules. When you check to see whether your disembarked unit can charge, you dont look at the vehicle they left three phases before, you check whether the unit is allowed to charge. They disembarked from an open topped transport, and that allows you to charge in the same turn.

[Emicus]

Herr is an e.g. A unit disembarks from a land raider, the land raider dies in the shooting phase thanks to rebounded shots by a tau tidewall, can the unit still charge even tho the vehicle no longer exists and have lost the assault vehicle rule?

[march10k]

Emi,  your first post makes some sense, the second one makes none. 

It doesn't matter whether the tank they disembarked from is alive, it matters whether it's open topped (or, in the case of a land raider, classified as an assault vehicle).  Even if dead, the land raider is still an assault vehicle.

 

Going to the first post, the wording does matter, it matters a great deal. If you say "it's an open topped vehicle, but doesn't suffer the +1 to armor penetration," that's an ironclad rule.  Saying "it's an assault vehicle, but only for the purpose of embarking and disembarking," that would fully include "not for the purpose of taking fire" and would give a reason for including "only for the purpose of embarking and disembarking."  If you say "only for the purpose of embarking and disembarking," AND say "no +1 to armor penetration," then either it's horribly redundant, or "only for the purpose of embarking and disembarking" must mean something different.  What, then? Well, open-topped does three things.  It allows you to embark and disembark from any point along the hull, it allows you to charge after disembarking, and it incurs the +1 penalty on the damage table.  Well, the +1 is explicitly removed.  The rest explicitly mentions embarking and disembarking, but does not mention charging. 

 

RAW, you are right about the check that you make at the moment of determining whether the unit can charge or not, but one could also argue, under RAW, that they did not disembark from an open-topped vehicle, they disembarked from a vehicle that is treated as open-topped for the purpose of disembarking (not the same as a vehicle that is treated as open-topped for the purpose of charging, per RAW).  RAW is dead.  Or, rather, RAW is no longer GW's party line, because it turned out to create a lot of absurdities without solving many issues. 

 

In this case, The inclusion of the sentence on +1 not applying is either redundant, or GW intended the sentence about open-topped to mean disembark anywhere but do not charge.  Both of those are entirely believable.

[Emicus]

The rule for assault vehicle states: "Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so...". That's all you need.

 

​it counts for purposes of disembarking, you disembarked, bobs your proverbial relative and ten praises to the Emperor. GW catches a lot of slack for not being specific enough with their rules, and when they finally have a rule where everything is dried and dusted, we complain it's redundant. "Hm, they would never write something redundant, that must mean it's exclusion by omission!" If they wanted the rule to be open-topped for disembarkation without charging, wouldn't they have written that instead? They've clearly said, it's open topped for disembarkation and embarkation, no that does not mean you can make it explode - just stop it Darrel. Go, Stormlord.

​Oh and re the E.g. post, no, it doesn't mean any :cussing sense - that's the point. Who gives a flying piglet what happens to the vehicle or what the vehicle does or doesn't do. You've disembarked from an assault vehicle (or in regards to the Stormlord, an Open-topped vehicle) that's what allows you to charge, there is nothing else.

[march10k]

~sigh~  The Stormlord does not have the "open topped" special rule.  It has a special rule stating that it's open-topped for the purposes of embarkation and debarkation.  It's not the same thing as being open-topped for the purposes of charging.  Your assumption that GW intended that you be able to charge on the turn on which you disembark from a Stormlord is reasonable.  But anyone who fails to make that assumption, and believes that GW only intended to make the entire hull a valid disembarkation/embarkation point is also thinking reasonably.

 

Re: the example you gave, the point is that you haven't disembarked from a vehicle with the "open topped" special rule, you've disembarked from a vehicle with a unique special rule that makes it open topped for the purposes of embarking and disembarking.  If the only difference was to be that it avoids the +1 penalty, why not give it the actual "open topped" special rule, and an additional unique special rule that invalidates the +1, instead of TWO unique special rules, one that gives it partial open topped, and one that waives the +1?  

[duz_]

Does that mean flame templates effect passengers too? ;)

[ElectricPaladin]

~sigh~ The Stormlord does not have the "open topped" special rule. It has a special rule stating that it's open-topped for the purposes of embarkation and debarkation. It's not the same thing as being open-topped for the purposes of charging. Your assumption that GW intended that you be able to charge on the turn on which you disembark from a Stormlord is reasonable. But anyone who fails to make that assumption, and believes that GW only intended to make the entire hull a valid disembarkation/embarkation point is also thinking reasonably.

 

Re: the example you gave, the point is that you haven't disembarked from a vehicle with the "open topped" special rule, you've disembarked from a vehicle with a unique special rule that makes it open topped for the purposes of embarking and disembarking. If the only difference was to be that it avoids the +1 penalty, why not give it the actual "open topped" special rule, and an additional unique special rule that invalidates the +1, instead of TWO unique special rules, one that gives it partial open topped, and one that waives the +1?

100% QFT. It's not at all clear and GW will hopefully FAQ it, but I think that either interpretation is reasonable… but I think it's more likely that you are NOT allowed to assault out of it.

[march10k]

Does that mean flame templates effect passengers too?

Certainly....before they embark and after they disemark

/edit/ On a more serious note, the open back is so flippin' huge that I think flying templates (hellturkey) and those on superheavy walkers should be able to affect passengers, but not those closer to the ground...and barrage weapons should also affect them,as long as the center hole is inside the back...with improved S and AP, as the interior walls contain and focus the blast. That would be a great house rule...

[ElectricPaladin]

Does that mean flame templates effect passengers too?

Certainly....before they embark and after they disemark

/edit/ On a more serious note, the open back is so flippin' huge that I think flying templates (hellturkey) and those on superheavy walkers should be able to affect passengers, but not those closer to the ground...and barrage weapons should also affect them,as long as the center hole is inside the back...with improved S and AP, as the interior walls contain and focus the blast. That would be a great house rule...

In theory, yes those are cool house rules. In practice… they sound kinda over complicated.

Personally, I'm imagining some kind of void shield or energized mesh that can be pulled away with incredible rapidity. I might even model mine with that in place.

The Solar Auxilia version has explorator adaptation, which represents a sealed environment and life support systems, DEFINITELY implying that the troop bay isn't really open.

[WarriorFish]

Nonsense march, should something fly overhead or embroil the Stormlord in flames the passengers can simply duck. Perfectly safe as all Imperial transports are

[march10k]

Overly complicated? More so than TLOS?

It's not that complicated...Fliers and superheavy walkers get to affect stormlord passengers as per the open-topped thing. Others do not. It's not perfect, for example landspeeders should be able to strafe them with a heavy flamer but would be denied, but it's not overly complicated.

And what would be complicated about "if the center hole of a barrage large blast ends up inside the passenger compartment, 3d3 hits are achieved against each unit inside, at +1S and AP. Small blasts acheive 2D6 hits against one randomly chosen unit with +1S?"

Besides, house rules are dependent on the capacity of the house players to comprehend...such rules would only be created in a shop where the majority of players have three digit IQs...

WF,

I'll grant that you'll live longer if you don't question the safety and wisdom of open-topped transports

[cypherthefallenangel]

Come on guys. I think you guys are trying to justify reasoning that the rules are some how ambiguous. They are not. The only time you can get on or off the tank is during your movement phase. Only for purposes of getting on or off the tank does the tank count as opened topped. in the unit type description it says Vehicle (super-heavy vehicle, transport) there is no mention of opentopped. which mean the vehicle isn't normally opentopped so no flaming the dudes inside and no bonus to damage. The whole no bonus to the damage chart should have been left out but I suppose it was put in to prevent arguments. The unit that disembark from this tank counts as disembarking from an opentopped vehicle( as per special transportation rule), may charge the same turn (as per BRB).

[march10k]

First of all, the flaming and barraging the passengers thing was clearly labeled as a theoretical house rule.  No need for your dripping condescension there.

 

 

Nowhere does it say that units disembarking from stormlords count as having disembarked from an open-topped vehicle.  If you want to be a rules-lawyer about it, those units disembarked from a vehicle that counts as open-topped for the purpose of disembarking.  That's not the same as disembarking from an open-topped vehicle. 

 

But that's not really the point.  Here is what is clear:

 

1.  GW wanted the entire hull to be a valid point of disembarkation/embarkation

2.  GW did not want the bonus on the damage table to apply

3.  Embarked troops are immune to the effects of flamers

 

What is not clear, but is likely:

 

1.  GW wanted you to be able to charge

 

What is possible, but unlikely:

 

1.  GW actually thought about the flamer thing in addition to the damage table thing, but inexplicably decided to redundantly emphasize the damage table bonus and assume that the flamer thing was clear enough as is.

 

Actually, the damage table thing is redundant regardless of whether you can charge or not, it's really only useful as evidence that this is not "the clearest, most iron-clad rule Nottingham has ever written," as has been claimed.