Question about shooting transports and assaulting passengers

[tahrikmili]

An assault squad with a Meltagun is facing an enemy transport with enemy units inside. The said assault squad fails to pop the transport. A Devastator squad manages to pop it with a Lascannon in the same shooting phase. Can the assault squad still assault the units that just disembarked?

[bystrom]

Yes, I think so, pg 67, above Dedicated Transports, the Note. If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack (which it is), the unit that shot it may assault the passengers. The assault squad did shoot it.

 

The only problem would be that it says the unit, as it seems to hint to one unit, and that one unit would be the one that destroyed the transport. Will see what others think.

[pingo]

Don't see why not. If a unit is destroyed in the shooting phase, a unit may choose another unit to assault. This is a similar situation.

[Ming]

As long as they shot at the transport, successful or not, then yes they can assault the survivors. IIRR the rules call for shooting at the transport, does not require that the unit's shooting caused the dismount.

[BlackSpike]

Don't see why not. If a unit is destroyed in the shooting phase, a unit may choose another unit to assault. This is a similar situation.

 

Not true.

If a unit shoots in the shooting phase, and it's target is destroyed (either by the shooting unit, or another unit), that unit may NOT assault a different unit. You may only assault the unit you shot at. (Special exception for destroyed transports).

[Isiah]

As long as they shot at the transport, successful or not, then yes they can assault the survivors. IIRR the rules call for shooting at the transport, does not require that the unit's shooting caused the dismount.

 

Actually I'm going to disagree. The wording on p67 is...

 

Note: remember that all models in a unit must fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport [...] and then mow down the occupants [...]. However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengeers [...].

 

Taken as a whole, there is only one shooting unit involved in that paragraph, and thay are the ones who can assault if they've managed to destroy their target vehicle.

 

Cheers

I

[Seneschal of the Seventh]

Note: remember that all models in a unit must fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport [...] and then mow down the occupants [...]. However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengeers [...].

 

That's some pretty ambiguous wording when applied to this particular scenario, but I would argue that since the statement is "the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..." instead of saying "the unit that destroyed it ...", then the assault squad may assault, as they did indeed shoot the transport.

 

But I can see the counter argument as well...

[gdeathlegion]

"However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers"

 

 

Notice there is a comma after "by a ranged attack"; this should explicitly prove to anyone who has any decent grasp of the English language that a unit can in fact assault the troops disembarked from transport that the said unit shot at. Also, "any ranged attack" also indicates that the killing blow to the transport may have been from ANY other shots fired during the shooting phase.

[Zacharijah]

"However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers"

 

Notice there is a comma after "by a ranged attack"; this should explicitly prove to anyone who has any decent grasp of the English language that a unit can in fact assault the troops disembarked from transport that the said unit shot at. Also, "any ranged attack" also indicates that the killing blow to the transport may have been from ANY other shots fired during the shooting phase.

I believe you are mistaken here, and I consider myself as having a decent grasp of the English language. The comma does nothing to clarify the rule. It is there for grammatical reasons, not to point out which unit gets to do what.

 

Isiah is correct. The important word in the sentence is "the", as in "the unit that shot it", singular. This means that "shot" in this case reads as "destroyed". Otherwise, it would have been "any unit that shot it may assault".

 

Note that the text doesn't say "any ranged attack" as you stated. It says "a ranged attack", which is to clarify that the unit may assault in the assault phase if it took out the transport in the shooting phase.

[tahrikmili]

I believe 'the' unit that shot it does not aim to single out the unit that destroyed it, it is there to strengthen the meaning that the one single unit that shot at the transport, and no other, can assault the enemy. It infers singularity.

 

I believe the writer did not consider the case of multiple units shooting the transport at all, and the text as is can not be inferred as only a destroyed result allows an assault, that is not inferred anywhere.

 

As a result, I could take shots at a transport with my Assault squad and fail to destroy, shoot it with my Devastators and destroy it, then assault the disembark passangers with the Assault Squad because calling it 'the unit that shot' the transport would not be wrong.

 

Stupid but fair as far as rules go..

 

What this makes impossible is shooting the transport with multiple units that have no chance of destroying it, then taking it out with a MM Bike, and piling in on the passangers with all units that took potshots at the transport, because you can assault with 'the unit that shot' the transport, meaning one unit, but not necessarily the one that destroyed it, as shooting does not equate destroying.

 

My interpretation anyway.

[Isiah]

A Grey Area rule? Yes? No?

[Starblayde]

An assault squad with a Meltagun is facing an enemy transport with enemy units inside. The said assault squad fails to pop the transport. A Devastator squad manages to pop it with a Lascannon in the same shooting phase. Can the assault squad still assault the units that just disembarked?

To this, I'd say no. As we've all figured out:

• If the assault squad pop the transport in shooting, they can assault the unit that was inside it.
  
• If the devastator squad pop the transport, then the assault squad can shoot the unit and then assault it.
  

In common sense terms, we'd see the assault squad failing to blow it up with a meltagun, calling in devastator support, then charging the unit that piles out of the wrecked transport, giving the thumbs up to the lascannon marksman.

 

In rule terms, we only have the unit that shot it, which doesn't really help anyone. As far as RAW go, it's a no from me - I wouldn't try this, nor would I let it happen to me.

[astrohed]

I dont know how we made this so complicated. First of all, stop trying to find exploits in the rules of the game. Dedicated transports do count as a seperate troop unit in spending and deployment. But are considered the same unit as the troops they carry. With that said. The shooting phase and the assault phase are seperate. As long as you only fired pistols or assault weapons at the transport, during the shooting phase then you may assault the surviving passengers in the assault phase. That was my interpretation of the rule. Otherwise cherry picking would play too large a part in the game. In my opinion of course. Meaning some players would pick and choose, to their liking. What to shoot first, second and so on to their best benefit. When it is assumed that all units fire at the same time in the shooting phase. You should know what you want to do in the assault phase anyway. Before you fire a single shot in the shooting phase. It is the purist way to play the game. Hope that helps.

[Roland Durendal]

It's fairly simple and we don't even need to go into crazy English grammar to figure it out. I'll break it out as explained in the rules and then in the specific situation.

 

However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengeers

 

This reads clearly. A transport is shot at by Unit A's ranged attack. Unit A's "shot" fails to destroy it. Unit B fires a ranged "shot" at the same transport. This "shot" destroys it. Unit B may then addault the occupants (assuming they're able to on account of the rules for firing certain weapons and conducting a following assault.) The wording is unambiguous. There is only ONE unit they are referring to, the unit which caused the destroyed result on account of said unit's "shot". The implied meaning (and really it shouldn't have to be clarified this way, but maybe in next edition GW will do what the US Army does and write things to a 4th graders reading level), is that the unit which shot the transport and destroyed it may then assault the passengers.

 

So in this situation, ssault squad fails to destroy the transport with their melta "shot". They can assault transport in the following phase if they choose (assuming the transport is alove and they fired no RF/Heavy weapons, etc), but they cannot assault the passengers as they were not the unit which caused the destroyed result. Next up, the Devastators fire at the same transport and destroy it, causing the passengers to disembark. The Devastators could then hypothetically charge the passengers assuming they were in range and they hadn't fired any HW or RF weapons. But seeing as they most likely fired a ML or a LC to blow up the transport, they cannot assault.

 

For the sake of the argument, let's think of other examples though. Tac squad A has a Flamer, and Tac Squad B has a melta. Squad A fires the flamer at the rear armor of a rhino in hopes of doing some damage. Nothing happens (i.e. no 6 was rolled). Squad B fires the melta and destroys the transport and passengers disembark. By some of the logic argued here, both squads would be able to assault. This slipperly slope leads to situations where people know Transport A has <<insert nasty CC squad of doom>> inside, so they shoot at it with several squads who have little to no chance of destroying it (for example squads with flamers, boltguns bolt pistols, etc.) and then have one or two squads that do have the ability to destroy it fire at it, in the hopes they destroy the transport and the passengers disembark, thereby allowing ALL the squads that fired at (including those that had no chance of every destroying the vehicle) assault the passengers to overwhelm uber-nasty-CC unit with a torrent of attacks.

 

That my friends is just cheap gaming, a means of winning by twisting the rules, reading too much into the rules, or just being a fail at general reading comprehension.

 

 

Not saying any of you fall into those categories, just saying in general that's what doing so comes across as.

[Sparhawk]

I think the real question I have is why you wouldn't just pop the transport with the Devs and then shoot/assault the passengers with your assault squad, or is it that I cannot shoot at a unit that just got ejected from their transport because if that is the case I've lost a lot more tac squads then I should have...

[Frosty the Pyro]

I think the real question I have is why you wouldn't just pop the transport with the Devs and then shoot/assault the passengers with your assault squad, or is it that I cannot shoot at a unit that just got ejected from their transport because if that is the case I've lost a lot more tac squads then I should have...

Probly because the had a meltagun within melta range of only the one transport, but those devs could easily have shot at any tank on the feild due to their range.

[Koremu]

It's fairly simple and we don't even need to go into crazy English grammar to figure it out. I'll break it out as explained in the rules and then in the specific situation.

 

However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengeers

 

This reads clearly. A transport is shot at by Unit A's ranged attack. Unit A's "shot" fails to destroy it. Unit B fires a ranged "shot" at the same transport. This "shot" destroys it. Unit B may then addault the occupants (assuming they're able to on account of the rules for firing certain weapons and conducting a following assault.) The wording is unambiguous. There is only ONE unit they are referring to, the unit which caused the destroyed result on account of said unit's "shot". The implied meaning (and really it shouldn't have to be clarified this way, but maybe in next edition GW will do what the US Army does and write things to a 4th graders reading level), is that the unit which shot the transport and destroyed it may then assault the passengers.

"Shot" in this context is not referring to a physical round of ammunition or a single discrete unit of fire. Shot is the past tense of the verb "to shoot". If the rules meant to state that the only unit able to assault the contents were the ones that actually destroyed it, they would say "the unit that destroyed it may assault the now disembarked passengers".

[Sparhawk]

For whatever reason this feels a lot like the quasi-argument over whether the unit that shot the transport was allowed to assault the unit. The cornerstone of that argument was hung up on the statement concerning still following standard assault rules.

 

From a common sense perspective it doesn't really make sense that a unit would fire off it's melta, have it fail to blow, see a lascannon blast pulverize the transport, and then pout "Meh I guess I really didn't want to attack those guys anyway".

 

I kinda see this sorta thing as the Marine equivalent of the cock-block:

"Hey dude I saw that devilfish first"

"Sorry bro, it ain't my fault I've got the flyest Krak around"

"Yeah well...that ships probly been wrecked by everyone marine in the chapter by now..."

Then the assault marines walk away dejectedly, with a single tear rolling down their cheeks.

[astrohed]

It's fairly simple and we don't even need to go into crazy English grammar to figure it out. I'll break it out as explained in the rules and then in the specific situation.

 

However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengeers

 

This reads clearly. A transport is shot at by Unit A's ranged attack. Unit A's "shot" fails to destroy it. Unit B fires a ranged "shot" at the same transport. This "shot" destroys it. Unit B may then addault the occupants (assuming they're able to on account of the rules for firing certain weapons and conducting a following assault.) The wording is unambiguous. There is only ONE unit they are referring to, the unit which caused the destroyed result on account of said unit's "shot". The implied meaning (and really it shouldn't have to be clarified this way, but maybe in next edition GW will do what the US Army does and write things to a 4th graders reading level), is that the unit which shot the transport and destroyed it may then assault the passengers.

 

So in this situation, ssault squad fails to destroy the transport with their melta "shot". They can assault transport in the following phase if they choose (assuming the transport is alove and they fired no RF/Heavy weapons, etc), but they cannot assault the passengers as they were not the unit which caused the destroyed result. Next up, the Devastators fire at the same transport and destroy it, causing the passengers to disembark. The Devastators could then hypothetically charge the passengers assuming they were in range and they hadn't fired any HW or RF weapons. But seeing as they most likely fired a ML or a LC to blow up the transport, they cannot assault.

 

For the sake of the argument, let's think of other examples though. Tac squad A has a Flamer, and Tac Squad B has a melta. Squad A fires the flamer at the rear armor of a rhino in hopes of doing some damage. Nothing happens (i.e. no 6 was rolled). Squad B fires the melta and destroys the transport and passengers disembark. By some of the logic argued here, both squads would be able to assault. This slipperly slope leads to situations where people know Transport A has <<insert nasty CC squad of doom>> inside, so they shoot at it with several squads who have little to no chance of destroying it (for example squads with flamers, boltguns bolt pistols, etc.) and then have one or two squads that do have the ability to destroy it fire at it, in the hopes they destroy the transport and the passengers disembark, thereby allowing ALL the squads that fired at (including those that had no chance of every destroying the vehicle) assault the passengers to overwhelm uber-nasty-CC unit with a torrent of attacks.

 

That my friends is just cheap gaming, a means of winning by twisting the rules, reading too much into the rules, or just being a fail at general reading comprehension.

 

 

Not saying any of you fall into those categories, just saying in general that's what doing so comes across as.

 

Who is shooting at the transport is completely irrelevant. Any unit that is in the 6" assault range of the now disembarked unit, may assault them in the assault phase. Forget all the other topics off bad gaming and what not. I dont care who killed the transport. As long as you did not shoot else where or use non assault weapons, you can assault the disembarked unit with as many bad asses as you could afford to field. This is the price you pay for going mech-spam. If you dont want to get assaulted, dont hide your units in a transport.

[Zacharijah]

Who is shooting at the transport is completely irrelevant. Any unit that is in the 6" assault range of the now disembarked unit, may assault them in the assault phase. Forget all the other topics off bad gaming and what not. I dont care who killed the transport. As long as you did not shoot else where or use non assault weapons, you can assault the disembarked unit with as many bad asses as you could afford to field. This is the price you pay for going mech-spam. If you dont want to get assaulted, dont hide your units in a transport.

The problem is if the would-be assaulting unit shot at the transport first, and then wanted to assault the troops disembarking from the flaming wreck. This is only allowed if the assaulting unit is the one that destroyed the transport.

 

The wording in the rule is important (although not as clear as it could have been): "The unit that shot it" is singular, as mentioned. This means that only one unit can assault the troops coming out of the wrecked transport. Clearly, the rule refers to the unit that destroyed the transport. It's even specified earlier in the sentence: "if a transport is destroyed (...), the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers". "The unit that shot it" clearly refers to the unit that destroyed the transport, and no other units.

 

Also, applying "common sense" to the rules is probably a bad idea. The rules weren't designed to make sense, they were designed to be balanced. It makes very little sense that a Tac squad's missile launcher can't shoot at a tank, while the bolter-armed marines in the unit shoot at the infantry in front of it. But them's the rules.

[tahrikmili]

The problem is if the would-be assaulting unit shot at the transport first, and then wanted to assault the troops disembarking from the flaming wreck. This is only allowed if the assaulting unit is the one that destroyed the transport.

 

This is not RAW, this is RAI. Nowhere in the text does it say or even try to infer that the unit has to destroy the vehicle, only that it has to be destroyed.

[Vanor]

Clearly, the rule refers to the unit that destroyed the transport.

 

That's only your interpenetration of the rules, and not how it's actually stated.

 

It uses the term destroyed and then uses the term shot. So it's not clear, because if you go purely by RAW then anyone who shot at the transport, can assault the unit that disembarks.

 

That said, this seems like some mighty find hair splitting when you start trying to parse the meaning of the phrase the unit..

 

RAI, I would say that IMO it was clear the writer didn't consider more then unit shooting at the same transport, so wrote the rules without allowing for it to happen.

[Zacharijah]

This is not RAW, this is RAI. Nowhere in the text does it say or even try to infer that the unit has to destroy the vehicle, only that it has to be destroyed.

 

Actually yes, the sentence does infer that the assaulting unit has to be the one that destroyed it. "if a transport is destroyed, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers".

 

I don't consider it hair splitting, since clearly some people are still in disagreement as to what the rule states. In my opinion, the meaning of the line is clear, if poorly worded. If any unit could assault the passengers, regardless of who actually destroyed the transport, the text should have read "any unit" instead of "the unit". The sentence does not allow for other units in the equation, so to speak.

 

Forgive me if I sound anal retentive about the wording, but as an English major I tend to notice things like this. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone.

[JamesI]

It's fairly simple and we don't even need to go into crazy English grammar to figure it out. I'll break it out as explained in the rules and then in the specific situation.

 

However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengeers

 

This reads clearly. A transport is shot at by Unit A's ranged attack. Unit A's "shot" fails to destroy it. Unit B fires a ranged "shot" at the same transport. This "shot" destroys it. Unit B may then addault the occupants (assuming they're able to on account of the rules for firing certain weapons and conducting a following assault.) The wording is unambiguous. There is only ONE unit they are referring to, the unit which caused the destroyed result on account of said unit's "shot". The implied meaning (and really it shouldn't have to be clarified this way, but maybe in next edition GW will do what the US Army does and write things to a 4th graders reading level), is that the unit which shot the transport and destroyed it may then assault the passengers.

"Shot" in this context is not referring to a physical round of ammunition or a single discrete unit of fire. Shot is the past tense of the verb "to shoot". If the rules meant to state that the only unit able to assault the contents were the ones that actually destroyed it, they would say "the unit that destroyed it may assault the now disembarked passengers".

I agree with Koremu's interpretation. If my assault marines shoot a transport, then the transport is popped by another unit, the assault marines qualify on the statement of "unit that shot"

[Isiah]

Forgive me if I sound anal retentive about the wording, but as an English major I tend to notice things like this. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone.

 

No apologies required – your point was put across very well. And matches my own view on this *dives for cover*. Discussions here tend to revolve around grammar or wording, usually because both are poor.

 

Cheers

I