On shooting/assaulting transports

[atra angelus]

This came up in another thread, so asking here to avoid cluttering that thread further. And before reading any farther let me make it very clear: The text plainly says one thing, and GW obviously intended the other thing. I really dont think RAW or RAI are very obscure here. So, I am primarily interested in an answer to "how do you play it", rather than "how to interpret it". In the thread, it became apparent some areas play it one way without question, and others play it the other without question, and I think both have some merit. So, please examine the following and state which way you play it, and a short why. Thanks!

 

on pg 67 of the small rule book:

"remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with its lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules."

 

Well, by saying "if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules" refers you back to the assault rules on pg 33 of the small rule book:

"a unit that fired in the shooting phase can only assault the unit that it shot at - it cannot assault a different unit to the one it previously shot at ."

 

It then refers to the exception of multiple combats on the following page, but in order to utilize those you have to begin with declaring a legal charge.

 

So, the question then is, the way the pg 67 reference is worded makes no exception to the rule on page 33 that it refers you to. Thus, without any exception, it would never be allowed to make the assault they suggest in the quote, thus making the quote superfluous. Now it probably wouldnt be there if they did not intended it as an exception, but it would need to say "...if it is otherwise allowed to assault..." or something similar to indicate bypassing one of the normal restrictions; which it does not. This fairly reliable conclusion is why I say RAW and RAI are pretty clearly defined here.

 

So, which way has your crew played it, and what rules or reasoning did you use to make your choice?

Thanks.

[Seahawk]

We've always played that you can assault the passengers that were forced to disembark. The quoted rule has always been an exception to the "normal assault rules" to our club. They obviously meant that if you fired heavy or rapid fire weapons you cannot assault (how we decided, at least) so that's how we play.

[JamesI]

Its quite clear that you can assault a unit in a transport after blowing up the transport assuming you are allowed to assault, meaning in range to assault and did not fire rapid fire or heavy weapons without the relentless rule.

[Isiah]

Its quite clear that you can assault a unit in a transport after blowing up the transport assuming you are allowed to assault, meaning in range to assault and did not fire rapid fire or heavy weapons without the relentless rule.

 

Agreed. All the other normal rules for assault must be followed.

[atra angelus]

Thanks for the replies so far. Please try to keep on track with how you play it, not 'what it says'. What it says is not really in question, nor is the grammar of what it does and does not allow as written. So far it seems a majority 'play as they feel was clearly intended'. Seems the pocket around here might be far more RAW than most folks regarding the main rules, despite the huge tendency to be lenient about codex rules. Interesting. Looking forward to more insights.

[DuncanSpence]

We play that if you destroy the Transport you may attack the passengers as long as all other requirements for assault have been met (i.e. only the 'not able to attack a different unit than you shot' at is suspended, since this is the only restriction that's mentioned on P67) - so if you take out the transport with a Lascannon, you cannot assault, but if it was a meltagun you can get stuck in.

 

The reason why is that it has never occurred to us to play it any other way. Having reread everything now, I can't see us changing the way we play it.

[Albion de Heaven]

Its quite clear that you can assault a unit in a transport after blowing up the transport assuming you are allowed to assault, meaning in range to assault and did not fire rapid fire or heavy weapons without the relentless rule.

 

 

We play the same in my club here in Italy (Torino)

[thade]

The rules in the transport section of the vehicle chapter explain an exception to the normal assault rules (that you can assault a different unit IF that different unit was inside the transport you just shot at and wrecked) and refers you to the assault chapter to follow the rest of the rules there. Were there no exception to it, it wouldn't say anything about it. What you are highlighting is not a paradox.

 

The Warhammer 40k rules are not bulletproof and are not written as law, nor can they be (or should they be) interpreted as law. If you do try to interpret them in this way, you will frequently come up short and be frustrated with them.

[atra angelus]

The rules in the transport section of the vehicle chapter explain an exception to the normal assault rules

To make that statement you have to input your own interpretation as different from the grammatically correct one.

 

Were there no exception to it, it wouldn't say anything about it.

This is easily an excellent reason to input your own interpretation as different from the grammatically correct one, but its still reader input.

 

If you do try to interpret them in this way, you will frequently come up short

Rather than say its the readers fault for not figuring out the meaning, its equally valid to say the authors should take the time to simply write clearer meanings.

 

But then that could be said of any rules query. This one happens to be very clear in both cases, although I am unsure why people keep trying to claim it says something it doesnt, even if the intent is obvious to everyone. The grammar isnt in question here, and gw is known for its poor proofing. I was mostly just curious how most people dealt with it. Seems the local club here is an anomaly, weve got another set of games in about two weeks, and I may see what they think of this thread in the meantime. Might be nice to try what seems to be the convention for that set. Cheers for the replies all, especially the ones regarding how/why your groups made the call, as we might be re-examining that decision here. And when one of the guys is a practicing lawyer, stuff like this isnt as rare as you might think =p.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I know this sounds like me being on my soap-box just because I believe something to be so. Hopefully I also make an intelligent case in support of my stance....

 

We play it RAI, because it screams out for justice and to be heard!

 

I mentioned this on the other thread (DA tactica). GW writes rule x and it applies to assaults. Then they write rule y. They know what x reads and yet they still write y. In every other circumstance x applies completely. So why have they written y? It contravenes rule x, clearly. It is obvious that the two rules can't both be 'on' or 'right' at the same time.

Light and dark are not in the same location at the same time. It is not possible.

GW would not write a paragraph for a very specific scenario, which contradicts x, unless y, in that one very specific circumstance, has right of way. There is no other explanation for it.

Otherwise there is no point in GW ever even bothering to write rule y.

 

I am with you on the GW rule writing front. What gets me is, I am not expecting you to write perfect rules Mr Codex-writer. I can understand mistakes, I am human and I probably make them everyday. It is not a big deal. But please, when it becomes apparent, please fix it. That is a bugbear of mine with them is.

They can even skim the various forums for the FAQs. They don't even have to research ~ we've done it for them! :)

 

*This next bit isn't meant to be an attack but I realise due to the 'flat' nature of a forum conversation, it could come across as me getting a bit 'excited'.

 

I have seen what you wrote to thade and so I ask you this question; each man moves 6". Do you measure for each miniature? Do you put a mark on the table and move only that 6"? Do you do the same for each and every miniature?

Well if not why not?

GW never said the (slightly or very) relaxed way we move our men around is okay. They said 6". It is there in black and white. It is not debatable or open for interpretation. I know they didn't give us a prescribed method to adhere to, but the manner that I have described is the only way that can be considered acceptable.

So if you are not being anal about moving your men, not following RAW but employing a near enough is good enough method (I am not talking about cheating or being 'loose' with it, I am talking about being practical)

then why are you being such a stickler for RAW in this case?

 

Does that make sense? Someone is saying 'oh no, it never says "otherwise" so you can't' and yet are they so meticulous and strict in other parts of the game? If they aren't, then why are they picking this particular point to dig their heals in on? To me it just seems like they are being 'clever' (read; pedantic, Pharisaical, painful)

 

I know that sounds terribly judgemental of me, but that has been my experience of people when RAI is screaming to be heard and yet they hold out because of the tiniest piece of _RAW ~ that is how criminals get off, because they have a 'clever' lawyer.

 

I try to play RAW (so that in pick-up games, everyone is on the same footing and so hopefully no one is missing out) until RAI becomes so brazenly apparent that my conscience says 'hey bro, it is clear what they meant, even if the wording is suspect'

 

I hope I haven't been offensive in my enthusiasm.

[rat of vengence]

The rule clearly gives an exception to the rule. RAW and RAI are clearly in unison here. I play, as does everyone I have played afaik, play the shooting unit can assault as long as no heavy etc was fired.

 

RoV

[thade]

If you do try to interpret them in this way, you will frequently come up short

Rather than say its the readers fault for not figuring out the meaning, its equally valid to say the authors should take the time to simply write clearer meanings.

 

But then that could be said of any rules query. This one happens to be very clear in both cases, although I am unsure why people keep trying to claim it says something it doesnt, even if the intent is obvious to everyone. The grammar isnt in question here, and gw is known for its poor proofing. I was mostly just curious how most people dealt with it. Seems the local club here is an anomaly, weve got another set of games in about two weeks, and I may see what they think of this thread in the meantime. Might be nice to try what seems to be the convention for that set. Cheers for the replies all, especially the ones regarding how/why your groups made the call, as we might be re-examining that decision here. And when one of the guys is a practicing lawyer, stuff like this isnt as rare as you might think =p.

I don't disagree that the rules can be confusing given their apparent absent mindedness. Note to the practicing lawyer that GW doesn't write law (which we should be thankful for) as these rules are often full of holes. :lol:

 

As I said, their rules aren't bullet proof. Sure, you can blame them for that (really we all do here, as you would know if you spent as much time in this forum as the rest of these peeps weighing in on the thread) but blaming them for that has garnered us nothing. The fact remains that with a rules system that is not bullet proof, trying to interpret it as if it were is going to frustrate.

 

A few things that have helped to resolve rules disputes I've found is, if it's unclear in the current edition, note how it was handled in the previous edition; either the change will be painfully obvious or not seem to be there...in the latter case, that could very well be the way they intend for it still to happen. Also, people who have played multiple editions of the game (or even their other title, Fantasy) are more used to interpreting the hieroglyphics that GW seems to write in and can also help reach a resolution when something is confusing.

[Kronk]

We play: If you popped it, you get to eat the candy inside.

 

However, If you popped it with a heavy or rapid fire weapon and aren't relentless, OR you can't reach it, then no candy for you.