thade Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Just that. Rules state that a unit can only assault the unit that it fired upon...but what if during the shooting phase a unit destroys what it shoots at. Can it then assault something else? My presumption is No (meaning melta-popping a tank then charging in on another unit is a no-no). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamsight Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Yes thats right no shooting then assaulting another unit for any reason anoying at time but thats how it goes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 My presumption is No (meaning melta-popping a tank then charging in on another unit is a no-no). No, but with one exception that is often overlooked. If you pop a trasnport in shooting, you may assault the passangers of the transport (if there were any). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garou24 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 The transport and contained unit have always been a big discussion point in many games. I have always heard that since the transport and unit are seperate units, your not able to assault the unit in the transport with the unit that destroyed it. Is there a place I can confirm that in the rule book for any games where it comes up? I have looked but never found it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar8481 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I asked a related question down in the rules forum with respect to transports and units inside picking shooting targets. This thread should probably be moved there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother_Kluft Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Core rulebook, page 67. Under "Effects of damage results on passengers (Destroyed-explodes)" "However if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack the unit that shot it may assault the disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 There it is; can't believe I missed that. Thanks. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deus de Mortalis Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 There it is; can't believe I missed that. Thanks. =) Yeah, the rules are a bit mish mashed in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Durendal Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Really? That is AWESOME! We've always played that you cannot assault a unit that was embarked in a vehicle that just got a destroyed result b/c of the whole "separate target" issue. I can't believe I missed that little nugget of knowledge. Thanks! As an aside though, couldn't your opponent then argue, following the rules for assault, since it wasn't the unit targeted by your shooting, you cannot assault it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aekold Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 He can argue, but since the rules say that you can, you win the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 As an aside though, couldn't your opponent then argue, following the rules for assault, since it wasn't the unit targeted by your shooting, you cannot assault it? Then what would be the point of the rule that says you can do it? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Durendal Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 As an aside though, couldn't your opponent then argue, following the rules for assault, since it wasn't the unit targeted by your shooting, you cannot assault it? Then what would be the point of the rule that says you can do it? :) Haha oh I completely agree, it seems to make sense that if it says you can assault if normal restrictions allow, the you're allowed. I'm playing devil's advocate cuz I can see this turning into a circular argument of, "Ok I can charge you b/c pg 60 says embarked units that are forcibly disembarked due to a destroyed result can be charged as per the Assault rules." ..quick thumbing to Assault rules.... "No you can't b/c Assault rules state you can only assault the unit you targeted with shooting and you targeted the VEHICLE, which you destroyed. So no charging the occupants." "Right but pg 60 says..." "No pg XXX says..." And so forth until I break out the Exterminatussock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty the Pyro Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 you pull out the rulebook and point to it, its an exception, and therefore trumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 you pull out the rulebook and point to it, its an exception, and therefore trumps. An exception that explicitly mentions the rule that it trumps, no less. It's the way it is. EDIT: And thank goodness. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.