Shooting and flat out

So on several forums there are discussions going about Raider bound units shooting and then the Raider going flat out to carry them to safety. One side of the argument is that since the RAW says that a unit may not shoot on the same turn that the vehicle went flat out, it's fine as long as the timing is correct...if the unit shoots then the transport can flat out, but if the transport flat outs (flats out?) the unit may not shoot, since the rule applies to the vehicle and not the unit. The other side of the argument is that although the RAW seems to indicate that the order matters, what actually is important is that both actions may not occur in the same turn. A Raider full of Warriors with Racks becomes infinitely more survivable in the first interpretation. What do you make of it?

That the Raider and the Warriors are considered one unit and are bound by each others rules

Yea, its not intended for you to be able to boost after the unit inside has shot already; and I'd be seriously peeved at anyone that tried it in any game I played or a tourney I ran.

RAW it does work with only a bit of eye-squinting.
I don't expect anyone to allow it though.

Zaakath wrote:

Yea, its not intended for you to be able to boost after the unit inside has shot already;

I think the intended cheat would be to move 12", boost 18" then fire......

ahhh noooooooooo

Im sure its in the rules for flat out, or transports moving flat out (don't have rule book with me atm)

1++ wrote:

That the Raider and the Warriors are considered one unit and are bound by each others rules

If this were the case, though, wouldn't they both have to fire on the same target?

I'm really not trying to hunt for easter eggs. I just want to fully think this out. I keep looking at the rule, and keep feeling like it's actually within RAW, no matter how much your (and my, honestly) gut feels like it must be wrong somehow.

Haha I guess what matters more is that I really really REALLY don't ever want to be TFG, and I'm hoping you kind...er, evil folk can help me to logic it out one way or the other so that I can be absolutely sure that I either would/would not be TFG if I tried it.

Well units embarked and the transport themselves don't have to shoot at the same target (can't quote rules pg, not at home)

As for the original point, I dunno, do you think that's the intent of the ruling. Would you want your opponent doing that to you?

I can't speak to intent. And I have no opposition to people employing creative tactics. I know that our army is described as being quick, sneaky, and vulnerable, hitting hard and then vanishing off into cover, and this seems to fit into that perfectly. I have no problem fighting unfairly, as long as it's within the rules. There are those who say that splitting your IC off and charging in solo to save the rest of the unit from overwatch is out of keeping with RAI also, and I disagree with them as well.

I'm not that guy who is going to say 'tell me the page number that discounts me doing what I want to do'. That's TFG I don't want to be. But seriously, ignore your gut impression and consider:

The embarked unit can target a different unit for shooting than the transport.
The transport counts as a separate VP from the embarked unit.
The transport can be destroyed independently from the unit.
If the transport is shot down and the embarked unit is forced to disembark, the unit that targeted the transport cannot allocate the rest of the shooting to the newly disembarked unit.
The embarked unit can still shoot even when the transport has suffered wounds that prevent it from shooting.

All of this, combined with the language of the Flat Out rule, tells me that the transport and the embarked unit are completely separate aside from the fact that they occupy the same space, and thusly that this tactic, while it may feel as though it is in somewhat of a grey area, is legal. After all, the transport definitely can't fire its weapon if it goes Flat Out, so it's not like the penalty for this movement is sidestepped entirely.

I really do think this is kosher. As I've previously stated, I'm not bringing this up so that I can hone my arguments as to why it's ok to do. I truly want your input about it, but from a rules perspective. If I'm missing something I definitely want to know what it is. The last thing I want to do is to cheat. BUT, if this is a previously unexplored advantage that we get (much like how people are surprised when our flyers can Deepstrike), then I want to exploit it every chance I get.

Tony Spectacular wrote:

(much like how people are surprised when our flyers can Deepstrike)

Yes but that's written in black and white. Its not a hidden part of the rules.

I agree with you in the search for hidden gems of 6th ed. Now is the time to start questioning rulings etc

Tony Spectacular wrote:

1. The embarked unit can target a different unit for shooting than the transport.
2. The transport counts as a separate VP from the embarked unit.
3. The transport can be destroyed independently from the unit.
4. If the transport is shot down and the embarked unit is forced to disembark, the unit that targeted the transport cannot allocate the rest of the shooting to the newly disembarked unit.
5. The embarked unit can still shoot even when the transport has suffered wounds that prevent it from shooting.

Going to correct a few little things here first off.

1. - 3. Yes.
4. Thankfully, but they CAN assault them.
5. This however is wrong; check page 80 under effect of damage on passengers.

I have (finally) found out where it says that passengers cannot fire if it moved flat out:

Page 78, under the second paragraph of Fire Points.

While the wording is a might bit off, if the vehicle intends to move flat out that TURN then the passengers cannot fire. Having the phrase 'that turn', lead me to believe my reasoning here.

5 isn't wrong. There's a result wherein the vehicle can't fire but the crew can.

The issue with the wording of the rule is that it doesn't say that if the vehicle intends to move flat out in that turn then the passengers cannot fire. It says that if the vehicle DOES move that the passengers cannot fire. It doesn't say that the vehicle can't flat out if the passengers fire, it says that the passengers cannot fire if the vehicle goes flat out. At the time of firing no flat out move has been made. And since there are many examples of the vehicle and embarked unit as being treated as separate units, they should be able to act independently, right?

But thank you, this is the kind of input I'm looking for. Do you have any other thoughts?

Also, where in PA are you? If you're out here near Philly I'd love to get a game in sometime. We can hash this out further (and we can house rule it illegal for the game if you like )

Tony Spectacular wrote:

5 isn't wrong. There's a result wherein the vehicle can't fire but the crew can.

I don't know any vehicle damage result, that lets the passengers shoot, while the vehicle can't. There is however an instance, where it's the other way round. If a vehicle's crew is stunned the vehicle can still fire snap shots, while the passengers aren't allowed to fire at all.

But I'm not sure, if it is of any importance here.

Tony Spectacular wrote:

The issue with the wording of the rule is that it doesn't say that if the vehicle intends to move flat out in that turn then the passengers cannot fire. It says that if the vehicle DOES move that the passengers cannot fire. It doesn't say that the vehicle can't flat out if the passengers fire, it says that the passengers cannot fire if the vehicle goes flat out. At the time of firing no flat out move has been made. And since there are many examples of the vehicle and embarked unit as being treated as separate units, they should be able to act independently, right?

You are right. It doesn't say 'will move', or 'intends to move', or even 'is going to move' Flat Out. But it neither says 'moved' or 'has moved'. It uses the present form. And what time frame does the rule give? That round.
So it doesn't matter, if the vehicle has already moved or is going to move, it still moves that turn. And if it moves that turn, the passengers can't fire.

You can't fire first and move Flat Out later, without breaking that rule. It doesn't have to explicitly forbid to move Flat Out after shooting, because it tells us that you can't do both in the same turn.

At least that is my interpretation of the use of the present form in this sentence.

Thats all well and good as RAW but you'd have to be a dam better rule lawyer then me to get any one to go along with it.

To me this wasn't what was intended and therefore shouldn't be exploited by any but those desperate powergamers we all know in our local store. Rule lawyering is all well and good to ensure a fair game, but rule lawyering to get an unfair advantage or swing a rule in your favour just seems wrong to me.

I agree, and the intent is that the vehicle is moving to fast and for the whole turn for it to shoot, so how could the people inside shoot. While we do it one at a time, they are both fairly simultaneous. So in the spirit of the rule I would say no.

And the rule says that they cannot fire if the vehicles moves flat out "that turn." Therefore if the unit fires, the vehicle is now prohibited from going flat out or it would violate the rule.

And a weapon destroyed on a raider will render it unable to shoot, but passengers can.

As to the passengers and damage results; check on page 80, Effect of Damage on Passengers;

Shaken, snap shots; stunned, cannot shoot (though can move/assault, run). That's what I was referring to with my #5 comment.

I always find that a good way to apply the rules is to imagine that everything you do in a phase in a turn happens at the same time. If you and your opponant can agree on this then the rules make a lot of sense and it saves on arguements. For example the OP: If your transport moves flat out then your warriors are moving with it therefore they can't shoot. Another example is shooting down a transport, whatever shot shot everything and brought the transport down, the survivors are then in the wreckage so there are no more shots to hit them.

This thought process works for every rule in the rulebook and I really wish that people at tournaments and fun games would accept this. I would reduce the arguements and the constant anal whine of "No no no we have to check it word for word in the rulebook." Then trying to find a loophole and agueing about it for ages until someone gets bored...

Grub wrote:

I always find that a good way to apply the rules is to imagine that everything you do in a phase in a turn happens at the same time.

This is the crux of the issue here. The argument that the verb tense in the rule seems to state, though awkwardly, that both can't happen on the same turn is the strongest argument against what i'm trying to do that I've seen so far. However, the argument that everything happens at the same time just doesn't fly...and it fails to work in a directly relevant case, which is the case of a Raider shooting down a transport and then the crew embarked on that Raider shooting at the recently disembarked crew of the other side's transport. If all shooting happened at the same time, then this should be strictly disallowed, but as we know it is not. So, again, since the transport's shooting and the crew's shooting are not only allowed to target two separate units, but obviously happen sequentially, not simultaneously, it seems to be an argument in favor of crew shooting and then vehicle going flat out to me.

I'm not sure how this is even an argument. On the subject of passengers shooting, the rulebook (pg 78) says:

Quote :

They cannot fire if the vehicle moves Flat Out or uses smoke launchers that turn.

The converse of this is clearly that if the passengers shoot the vehicle may not move Flat Out.

@ Tony Spectacular: Ok so the transport brings down the vehicle which crashes and then the passengers shoot at it as its crashed, think you took the point a little to litterally. How about I rephrase it and say "Imagine everything happens within a short time..." (imagine that a standard game of 40k in real time would only take 20 mins max)
Furthermore count adhemar has hit the nail on the head

Count Adhemar wrote:

I'm not sure how this is even an argument. On the subject of passengers shooting, the rulebook (pg 78) says:

Quote :

They cannot fire if the vehicle moves Flat Out or uses smoke launchers that turn.

The converse of this is clearly that if the passengers shoot the vehicle may not move Flat Out.

Exactly, like I said above, once the warriors shoot, the vehicle cannot move flat out or it has created a rules violation, because the rules say clearly "that turn." As soon as the vehicle turbo boosts the warriors cannot shoot, so if they have already shot you can't turbo boost because you create a situation where you are not allowed to do something you have already done...so, you can't do it

Quote :

since the RAW says that a unit may not shoot on the same turn that the vehicle went flat out

Whats unclear?
It does not say, "cannot shoot after the vehicle goes flat out"
It says "cannot shoot on the same turn"

might just be arguing semantics with this but, under the open topped part of the BRB it states, "Open-topped Transports do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire..." Since it is under the fire point section that it says that passengers can't fire on a flat out, and since open-topped doesn't have fire point it wouldn't apply.

It would make since that you couldn't do it out of fire points cause it of the restraining field of fire. In a open-topped vehicle there is nothing to prohibit the field of fire when the vehicle moves flat out.

Except that rule is part and parcel of saying that an open topped vehicle does not have *specific* fire points.
It still has fire points - it's just that it has an infinite number and they can be anywhere on the hull.

I understand that part but if you look at the next part it doesn't specify that it has firing point. In regards to Access points it does specifically state that all of the vehicle is an access point. But no mention of firing points in the second part of the shooting, instead it just say all can shoot. I would think they would just use the same wording in the second part if they meant that there is ten firing points (as it is capacity 10) or the whole is a fire point with all passengers being able to fire.

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Access Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is
considered to be an Access Point (regardless of any base they may have).
Passengers Shooting from Open-topped Transports
Open-topped Transports do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all passengers in an
Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the
hull of the vehicle.

Malcharion wrote:

I understand that part but if you look at the next part it doesn't specify that it has firing point.

You are right - it does so in the first part.

Malcharion wrote:

measuring range and line of sight from any point on the
hull of the vehicle.

Those 'points' on the hull? Those are firing points. Because a firing point is a point on the hull of a vehicle a model transported inside can fire from.