# Assaulting Transports



## Crimzzen (Jul 9, 2008)

Good Evening everyone,

A question I pose to you;

Is it better to assault a transport and attempt to blow it up - potentially letting the occupants inside blast you and assault you?

OR

Is it better to stay away from transports, wait until they unload their goodies, and then assault them/their cargo?

It seems it might be a little difficult to wait them out,


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

I would say better to attack. If you kill the taxi the passengers have a chance of being pinned or wounded and pinned.

Throw enough blokes at it and they can't get out anyway.

Also you make the unit less use to your enemy.

I can't see how letting them alone will ever be to your advantage, but hey I'm sure somebody can think of a few dozen.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Also remember, if you destroy the transport you are allowed to assault the unit inside after their forced disembark


----------



## Underground Heretic (Aug 9, 2008)

Does that include a second assault if the vehicle is destroyed by your attacks?


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

No pinnning from exploding vehicles anymore. And no, you do not get to assault twice in a single turn. Galahad means that if you killed the vehicle in the shooting phase you are allowed to charge any units that were inside it.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Exactly, I was referring to if you destroy it by shooting.

However, darklove, there is still a pinning check for Wrecked or Destroyed vehicles. There's no more 'entangled' just straight up 'pinning' (which means fearless units are just fine, whereas in 4th they would still have to make a check)

You could always try the old Encirclement technique. Surround the vehicle and assault, placing your models so that they block access points, then hope that you wreck (but not Explode) the tank in the assault.

Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed.
*Normally* if you cannot disembark you would perform an 'Emergency Disembark' and deploy anywhere within 2" of the hull, and then you just can't do anything else. However, that's the normal rule for what happens if you cannot disembark. Wrecked says flat out, models that cannot disembark are destroyed...nothing about allowing an emergency disembark. 

However, it's a bit risky. If you completely explode the tank then you've just taken damage from the blast and the surviving enemy models appear where the tank was, which is now a nice friendly crater, giving them cover and allowing them to assault you on their turn.


----------



## bobinatorect (Nov 24, 2007)

> Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed.
> *Normally* if you cannot disembark you would perform an 'Emergency Disembark' and deploy anywhere within 2" of the hull, and then you just can't do anything else. However, that's the normal rule for what happens if you cannot disembark. Wrecked says flat out, models that cannot disembark are destroyed...nothing about allowing an emergency disembark.



I am going to have to disagree with this. The emergency disembark is done anytime the unit tries to disembark and can't do so because of being within 1" of an enemy or into impassible terrain. You are saying that it says nothing about being able to do an emergency disembark, but it doesn't say that you can't, and because every condition of an emergency disembark is met when a transport is destroyed in close combat you still can. However for most instances at least some of the guys won't be able to be placed anyway, especially if you are covering 3 of 4 sides of the transport.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Emergency disembark is still disembarking; i.e. if you make an emergency disembark you have successfully disembarked from the vehicle. If even an emergency disembark is impossible, then the unit can't disembark and is destroyed.
You will notice in the Disembarking description (p67) that emergency disembarkation is in quotes; this means that it is not a different rule to disembarking but rather an aspect of the same action.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

I disagree.

Emergency Disembark specifically happens when a model "Cannot disembark"

In other words, Emergency Disembark happens only after you have already failed to disembark. Which is fine and dandy under normal circumstances, but Wrecked *specifically* says that when you cannot disembark you are destroyed.

The rules on Disembarking say clearly that models cannot disembark within 1" of the enemy. If you cannot disembark from a wrecked vehicle you are destroyed. If you cannot disembark from a vehicle under normal circumstances you may Emergency Disembark.

Are you trying to disembark? Yes
Can you Disembark? No, models are too close to the doors.
Is the Vehicle Wrecked? If Yes, models are destroyed. If No, Emergency Disembark.

But I can understand the people who read it to allow an emergency disembark. It's not as clear as it could be, and I wouldn't argue against it at the table.

In that case, just spread your unit out a little more. If you can encircle the vehicle enough you can still trap all or most of the unit inside and kill them.

A big ork mob can swamp even a land raider if they start their assault move close enough to it. Smaller vehicles like rhinos are no problem, even for smaller units.


----------



## Triangulum (Jul 15, 2008)

I say kill it and come what may, to big a chance of something untoward happening if you leave em alone


----------



## BlackApostleVilhelm (May 14, 2008)

blast the vehicle to hell and when the bastards come out blast them too.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I would say that you can't find anything more like an emergency than your vehicle blowing up with you in it - if you can't make an emergency disembark in an emergency then it just makes a mockery of the concept. Istead you would have disembark (normal), clumsy-getting-out ('emergency disembark') and die-in-an-emergency-because-emergencies-mean-you-can't-make-an-emergency-exit (Wrecked).


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Just remember that the transport will probably be going fast, and that you will have to roll big numbers to hit it in cc. Charging a transport and *not* destroying it is very bad indeed. Shooting it and not destroying it is just a bit annoying.

Unless you can cover all the exits, you have to expect to find your own unit next to whatever was inside the transport with your opponent's turn about to start, whether you kill the transport or not.

The point comparison is worth considering as well. You are risking an assault unit, which tends not to be cheap, in order to kill a transport that probably costs less than 50 points.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

I didn't write it, Darklove, I just read it 

But Someguy brings up a good point. It is a very risky move. As I mentioned earlier, there's always the chance of Exploding the transport, which is a bad thing in this case.

I was just pointing out one of the options. Frankly, I think you're better off shooting up the tank then assaulting the survivors, but if the tank is still standing and you think you can surround it, it's a valid option for taking out whatever's inside.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I often assault transports and other tanks with the Deceiver, though a little exploding vehicle will just give C'tan a warm glow at worst.


----------



## Daneel2.0 (Jul 24, 2008)

Concentration of fire people :biggrin: Kill the vehicle and then shoot the passengers with another unit!

Then assault if you have to

EDIT: Better that the wondering if there is a unit of Guardsmen or Banshees in that Wave Serpent over there. If it turns out it is Guardsmen, you can still just ignore them for more important targets after all. But if its Banshees and you don't kill the transport they will make your life hard(er)


----------



## Xpyre35 (Feb 7, 2008)

Daneel2.0 said:


> ...Better that the wondering if there is a unit of Guardsmen or Banshees in that Wave Serpent over there. If it turns out it is Guardsmen, you can still just ignore them for more important targets after all. But if its Banshees and you don't kill the transport they will make your life hard(er)


How would you not know what's in the transport? Wouldn't that be declared at deployment? I mean if I have 2 units with a transport each, you have to dictate which you are rolling for during a reserves roll. Even if you are deploying them at the start, there has to be an indication of which unit is in which transport, or the deployer could switch behind the scenes which units are where depending on need.


----------



## Daneel2.0 (Jul 24, 2008)

You have to have the vehicle marked at the beginning of the game, but are under no obligation to show your opponent the key for the marking. That way, you cannot make a change to the unit inside, but your opponent doesn't immediately know what unit is inside.

If there are questions about which unit deployed out of the transport, you generally use a impartial 3rd party (the judge in a tourney for example)


----------



## Xpyre35 (Feb 7, 2008)

ThanX Daneel, for the explanation. I've only played friendly games, and don't really have a grasp on the tournament rules and such. I did always wonder why people were expressing ideas like which transport to shoot, whether a squad has a *hidden* power fist.

Our games we just usually declare everything before deployement as we are still slightly proxing certain units or weapon loads outs. This has become less often now that I've got approx 3000 pts of Marines now, in about a year of collecting. (1000 pts of Tryanids also, started in 4th from the Macragge Set)


----------



## Damned Fist (Nov 2, 2007)

I vote kill it. Even if it is in the assault phase. Although whatever comes out of it can attack me in their next turn I would rather that than let them have a free ride to wherever they wanted to go.:wink:


----------



## Caddock (May 18, 2008)

For discussion's sake how would you address this line:

pg 92 of the rulebook under "a note on secrecy"
"...always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle"

It does go on to say that allowing the reading of rosters before and during gameplay is a call the players have to make on preference.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Xpyre35 said:


> ThanX Daneel, for the explanation. I've only played friendly games, and don't really have a grasp on the tournament rules and such. I did always wonder why people were expressing ideas like which transport to shoot, whether a squad has a *hidden* power fist.


Just a note on this. A "hidden" power fist isn't literally hidden from players. It is hidden in that the guy using it can't be directly attacked, because he is just a squad member rather than an independent character.

So an ork nob with a klaw would be a "hidden" power fist, though the model is probably very obvious.

Hidden fists are a danger to independent characters who can be instant killed by them, and to monstrous creatures and walkers because they can be damaged by them and often not by the rest of the unit. It is generally seen to be a better idea to have fists hidden than in the hands of ICs, because the IC can be picked out and killed before he gets to attack. ICs are probably better off using stuff that strikes using their (usually pretty good) initiative score and staying the hell away from stuff that can instant kill them.

They have actually become more common as we've gone through editions of the game. In 3rd, you could direct attacks towards upgrade characters like ork nobs but since 4th you haven't been able to. Now in 5th it is possible to get a "hidden IC" in some armies, by giving a character a retinue. Something like an inquisitor lord with evicerator is now quite a lot more viable as a result.


----------



## Daneel2.0 (Jul 24, 2008)

Caddock: I would say that the 4 words you cut at the beginning of the sentence make a difference. It says "In the same spirit, ...." and goes on to say that "Others prefer to leave a feel of secrecy around their lists, as bluffing can make a game really entertaining. *THE CHOICE IS YOURS*"

To me, it makes no sense that I would know which units you have deployed in which transports. As such I never ask that my opponent reveal that information to me. I simply ask that they record their choice and allow a 3rd party (during the game) or myself (after the game) to verify.

If you want to do it the other way, feel free.


----------



## Caddock (May 18, 2008)

Daneel2.0:
I actually agree in spirit. I don't think I realistically should know what is in a transport heading across the field at me. As long as I know it was marked down somewhere and after the game I could check if I liked. Where I play though they always disclose.

However the "in the same spirit" that I cut actually strengthens the line about telling what is in the transport. It is the spirit of being fair and disclosing your list after the game that it is referring too, from the sentence before. To me it is directing the reader to be fair and disclose what is which transport like you would your list. 

Then in the next paragraph it switches topics to the force roster itself. At which point it gives players the choice of disclosing before/during the game or only at the end. The whole line you quoted (and I referenced in my first post), including the bolded bit, only refers to disclosing the entire force list before or during the game. Which a player doesn't have to do. That is where the choice lies. A player can say unit A is in transport A without disclosing the details of their list so I don't see these as mutually exclusive. 

If I was looking to pick on something it would be the word 'should' in the first paragraph. 'Should' is not a rule it is a suggestion. Unfortunately I don't think GW rulebooks can stand that type of criticism without completely breaking. Anyhow not looking to change anyone's mind, just comparing takes on the wording.


----------



## newsun (Oct 6, 2008)

Well I think that is just GWs way of showing you how you can play in a sporting manner. Which war is not always sporting like.

As to knowing what is in a transport, I guess that all depends on what intel you are playing with as prior knowledge. This is a game and you can make up whatever you want. You could say that one side has a bunch of intel on the other and then you get to know the whole army while they get to take a few more points of troops or anything you want.

I think the ultimate thing to keep in mind is to have fun.


----------

