Question about shooting transports and assaulting passengers

[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.

"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"

 

I posted this earlier, but my comp froze, soooo here it goes....

 

 

Yes but since we're arguing grammar, to make your interpretation 100% accurate it would need to say "ANY unit that shot at it", or "the UNITS that shot at it...", or "ALL units that shot at it..." not "the unit". "Unit" is a singular subject, and the definite article "the" emphasizes this. There can be only one action performed by this subject. The clear use of a single subject in the description of the rule, and the use of the future less vivid conditional phrase for the rule (sorry I studied Latin in college. Though I must admit, my grasp of English grammer has grown exponentially from learning Latin.), clearly demonstrates that there is only one subject who may do a follow on assault, i.e. the unit who shot and destroyed the transport.

 

 

As I said, to make it so ANYONE who shot at the transport can assault the disembarked passengers when the transport goes kaput, would require one of three different ways of writing it. Since they didn't use one of these three ways of describing the rule, it further validates the point of who kills it, can charge the poor guys inside. Assume the writers have a basic grasp of the English language and grammar, and that they are intelligent enough to know that if they wanted everyone who shot at a vehicle to charge its occupants, they could have chosen a variety of ways to convey that. But what they chose is explicit and honestly leaves no room for debate.

 

With regard to your example of assault marines shooting it, and it getting popped by another unit. While "shot" is the perfect form of "to shoot" (i.e. it shows a action completed in the past), and this applies to your marines after a quick reading, after more investigation it really doesn't. The perfect relates to a recently completed action, or an action that is completed in the near past. So for the other unit that destroyed the vehicle, their shooting occured in the near past (in relation to the assault marines, the other unit shot after the assault marines and therefore closer to the present, which we're assuming is the assault phase and that that unit was the last to fire in your shooting phase), and thus uses the perfect. To be grammatically accurate, the wording that would need to be present for the assault marines would read along the lines of "any unit that HAD shot at the transport...". This would then allow for ANY unit that had shot at the transport in the previous shooting phase to assault the now disembarked occupants. The downside is that this could lead to a slippery slope in that one COULD argue that by strict reading of the pluperfect tense (Had X'd is pluperfect = it shows action that started and ended in the distant past. Perfect can indicate action that started and ended in the near past, or started in the past and ended in the present), any unit that had EVER shot at the transport during the course of the game up to that point, may in fact be eligible to assault the occupants.

 

In summation, to make it 100% legitimate for anyone who shoots at a transport to charge it's occupants, it must be worded so:

 

"ANY unit that shot at the transport in the current shooting phase"

"The UNITS that shot at the transportin the current shooting phase"

"ALL units that shot at the transport in the current shooting phase"

 

I added the in the current shooting phase bit becuase technically you can slippery slope the reading to imply that if a unit at some point during the game shot at the transport they may assault the occupants, which is clearly not what was intended.

 

And so we're left with the unambigous and grammatically clear future less vivid statement

 

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

 

 

 

As an aside, I apologize for the lengthy grammar lesson. This wasn't meant to be critical or disparaging, for I understand not everyone has English as their first language, nor have many people studied Latin (or even English) grammar. And if my Latin is rusty (i.e. if it's not a Future Less Vivid Conditional, but rather a regular old Conditional) apologies my fellow Latin scholars, for it has been a few months since I've brushed up on the finer points of Latin grammar :-)

[bystrom]

I would say its a gray area, as any unit that shot at the transport could be 'that' unit.

 

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

 

'the unit' can only assault the disembarked passengers if a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack. 'the unit' can only assault if it shot the transport. There can be more than one unit that satisfies these conditions. If more than one unit satisfies these conditions, how would you know which unit is 'the unit'?

[Zacharijah]

If more than one unit satisfies these conditions, how would you know which unit is 'the unit'?

Because the definite article in "the unit" means that only one unit can ever satisfy the condition. "The unit" also presupposes that we've already established which unit we're talking about - and we have, in the first half of that same sentence:

 

If [the transport is destroyed] then [the unit that shot it] gets to assault.

 

Since the transport can only ever be destroyed once, by one unit, that's the unit who gets to assault the passengers.

 

The only reason why this sentence can be perceived as borderline grey area is the use of the word "shot". Based on the sentence structure, it's clear that the word means "destroyed", but that the writer most likely chose what he considered to be a synonym to avoid repetition. If any unit could assault, regardless of who destroyed the transport, the grammar would be off.

[tahrikmili]

Yes but since we're arguing grammar, to make your interpretation 100% accurate it would need to say "ANY unit that shot at it", or "the UNITS that shot at it...", or "ALL units that shot at it..." not "the unit". "Unit" is a singular subject, and the definite article "the" emphasizes this. There can be only one action performed by this subject. The clear use of a single subject in the description of the rule, and the use of the future less vivid conditional phrase for the rule (sorry I studied Latin in college. Though I must admit, my grasp of English grammer has grown exponentially from learning Latin.), clearly demonstrates that there is only one subject who may do a follow on assault, i.e. the unit who shot and destroyed the transport.

 

No. And it has nothing to do with grammar or Latin.

 

It says 'the unit that shot', stating very clearly that the one, singular unit in question may assault the passangers if it shot the transport . It does not, in any way, state or imply that the unit must have destroyed the transport. This is not about English grammar, Latin, or whatever. You are trying to INTERPRET the rules, which is not how they work. As they are WRITTEN, it says THE unit that SHOT the transport.

 

If I shot at the transport with five units and failed to harm it AT ALL, and point to one and ask you 'Is this the unit that shot the transport' would you say No?

 

You are not arguing semantics, you are arguing interpretation. And that's not how rules work.

 

The only reason why this sentence can be perceived as borderline grey area is the use of the word "shot". Based on the sentence structure, it's clear that the word means "destroyed", but that the writer most likely chose what he considered to be a synonym to avoid repetition. If any unit could assault, regardless of who destroyed the transport, the grammar would be off.

 

And here you're doing it again. What the writer means has nothing to do with how the rule works, the rule works as the writer wrote. Rules work as WRITTEN in WH40K. Hence, the precondition to an assault for 'the' unit in question is whether it 'shot' or not.

[Roland Durendal]

The issue then is, who's to say a unit that shot at the transport in an earlier turn/game can't then assault the disembarked passengers in a later turn?

 

This may sound like an obvious, so let me use an example.

 

Squad A shoots Transport 1 during turn 1 and fails to do anything.

 

It's now turn 3. Squad A shoots Enemy Squad D with assault weapons and kills them (maybe it was a flamer vs gaunts, who knows). Devastators Z shoot Transport 1 and destroy it causing Enemy Squad F to disembark. If we read it as some have mentioned and take it to the extreme, there is nor reason why Squad A cannot charge Enemy Squad F. By the logic listed above, Squad A shot the transport (maybe not in this turn, but according to this reading, the turn is irrelevant so long as they shot at the transport at some time), and the transport was destroyed and it's passengers disembarked, so Squad A is eligible to assault Enemy Squad F. I hope everyone sees how ridiculous this situation is (not only did Squad A shoot someone else in the current shooting phase, but now they're assaulting another target entirely.) This is akin to interpreting the rules for assault to mean the following:

 

Rule (written from memory): If a unit shoots a target in its shooting phase, it can only assault that unit in its assault phase.

How one can twist it: Well if I shoot Target A in turn 1, then Turn 2 I shoot Target 2 and Target 1 happens to be in assaulting range, I can, by reading the rules a certain way, charge Target 1. For did I not shoot Target 1 at some point in the game?

 

We as players know this is false and find such an argument ludicrous. Yet we're basically arguing the same idea when we say "Squad A shoots Transport B and fails to destroy it. Devastators C shoots Transport B and destroys it, so because Squad A shot it at some point in the past, they can assault the passengers."

 

Anywayyyy enough with grammar lectures.

 

Edit: Firstly it has everything to do with grammar for grammar is the foundation of language. Every sentence, paragraph, thought,etc. uses grammar, so to argue grammar has no place in this SIMPLE sentence is...well...patently not true. Moreover, without grammar, without the basic RULES of the language, a language is just gibberish. I only brought latin in for it's easier to describe grammar basics from the one language upon which many modern languages are based.

 

Secondly, this still doesn't answer the slipperly slope issue.

 

Thirdly, per your example. If you had 5 squads fire at some target and then INDIVIDUALLY pointed them out and asked "Did this unit shoot the target?" I would agree. If you then pointed at them all as a group a nd asked "did all these units shoot the target", again I would agree. If you pointed at two squads and asked "Did these two units shoot the target" I would agree. Notice how noun stems change between singular and plural, as do their definite/indefinite articles? These show us who si doing the action and the number. "The Unit" can and always will refer to an individual, not a group. There can be no more than a lone unit. Your example is...well horribly flawed for it lacks a basic grasp of the English language. If the games designers truly wished for it to mean how many are saying they think it means, it should have been written in on eof the three way s I mentioned above, where it leaves NO ROOM for any other interpretation. As is, since they wrote it discussing a single subject in the confines of the sentence, the lone subject "the unit" is the actor and the one to whom they refer to with regard to destroying the vehicle. Not some mysterious unit in previous moments of shooting or earlier shooting phases. Feel free to continue this fun debate. I've accepted the fact that I won't change anyone's mind/opinion. I'll play it my way, you play it your way, and if we're both having fun, who cares.

[tahrikmili]

The issue then is, who's to say a unit that shot at the transport in an earlier turn/game can't then assault the disembarked passengers in a later turn?

 

Nobody is, and yes they can.

 

There is nothing that says a unit that got disembarked from a destroyed transport can not be assaulted by a unit that has not shot at anything that turn, the assault rule allows units that did not shoot to assault any unit within range. Since basic assault rules would come before disembarked passanger rules a unit that shot at another unit can not claim to have shot the transport and assault the disembarked passangers, it can engage only one unit and that's the one they shot this turn. If however they shot nobody this turn they very well can assault the disembarked passangers.

 

This is further proven by how the rule about assaulting disembarked passangers starts, if I remember correctly it starts out by stating 'Normally a unit that shot may only assault the unit it shot at int hat same turn, however, in the case of shooting a transport...'

 

So it specifically addresses your issue of assaulting the unit for having shot it earlier, it references the two actions happening in the same turn. Someone can quote the full passage, I'm at work.

[Koremu]

For reference, the difference of opinion here is based around usage of the word "shot". Consider the two following sentences;

 

"We shot the tank"

 

"We shot our meltaguns at the tank"

 

No reparse those in light of the sentence in the rules, and you'll find that only the first fits - the act of shooting, not the specific shot, is the important part here.

[Roland Durendal]

The issue then is, who's to say a unit that shot at the transport in an earlier turn/game can't then assault the disembarked passengers in a later turn?

 

Nobody is, and yes they can.

 

There is nothing that says a unit that got disembarked from a destroyed transport can not be assaulted by a unit that has not shot at anything that turn, the assault rule allows units that did not shoot to assault any unit within range. Since basic assault rules would come before disembarked passanger rules a unit that shot at another unit can not claim to have shot the transport and assault the disembarked passangers, it can engage only one unit and that's the one they shot this turn. If however they shot nobody this turn they very well can assault the disembarked passangers.

 

This is further proven by how the rule about assaulting disembarked passangers starts, if I remember correctly it starts out by stating 'Normally a unit that shot may only assault the unit it shot at int hat same turn, however, in the case of shooting a transport...'

 

So it specifically addresses your issue of assaulting the unit for having shot it earlier, it references the two actions happening in the same turn. Someone can quote the full passage, I'm at work.

 

Woohoo common ground! I agree. Edited cuz you answered my question. I too am at work and don't have the Rulebook in front of me for the exact wording.

[Sparhawk]

The popped transport rules clearly state that all other assault rules must be followed...

 

Now I don't have the wording memorized so I'm not going to make any huge statments but I seem to recall them saying that a unit may only assault the unit it shot at that phase. I don't know if the "that phase" portion is there but I'm fairly certain that it is.

 

So, no, there is no slippery slope issue of prior turn shooting.

 

And based on the grammar discussion you have no idea how happy I am with my choice to go into engineering as opposed to english :P

[tahrikmili]

Woohoo common ground! I agree. Edited cuz you answered my question. I too am at work and don't have the Rulebook in front of me for the exact wording.

 

As i said, the passage stating that the ability to assault the passengers of a destroyed transport is granted to units that shot it specifically references that a unit must assault its shooting target for the same turn, then goes on to explain how the exception happens so there's fair ground to argue all is evaluated based on what happens that turn only. your example then does not qualify because that unit was not involved in the turn, does not fulfill the precondition and since assault rules do not allow this assault they can not join.

 

it would be great if someone would quote the whole passage..

[Zacharijah]

Nobody is, and yes they can.

 

There is nothing that says a unit that got disembarked from a destroyed transport can not be assaulted by a unit that has not shot at anything that turn

This isn't the issue, and nobody is talking about that situation. Of course anyone is allowed to assault whatever they want within range, if they haven't shot anything else. This isn't being disputed. The issue is a unit who shot at something else in the preceding shooting phase.

 

According to some people here, the rule reads "if a unit shot at the transport, it can assault the passengers after they bail out of the wreck". There is no time limit to this, it seems. Therefore, according to the literary reading of the rule, a unit can shoot at a transport in turn 1, fail to destroy it, and then shoot at something else in every turn after that, and still be eligible to assault the disembarking passengers after their transport gets blown up (for whatever reason). Clearly, this is a misinterpretation of the rule, I'm sure you'd agree.

 

In conclusion, the rule does need some interpretation, no matter what.

 

If the rule is: "Anyone can assault the passengers if they fired at the transport (no matter who actually destroyed it)", the sentence would have faulty grammar.

 

If the rule is: "The unit that destroyed the transport gets to assault the passengers in the preceding turn", the sentence would be grammatically correct, but would use the word "shot" as meaning "destroyed".

 

Those are the only two options. Both are interpretations. One assumes the writer made a grammatical error, the other assumes the writer is using creative freedom to avoid repetition. You be the judge.

[Sparhawk]

I think we can all agree that both options presented seem to be well within the realms of GW rule writting (Although I'm not sure if fulfilling their deep seated need for literary creativity is something that should be done in a rulebook :) ).

 

I'm personally of the mind that it seems far more likely that the GW writter made a grammar mistake as opposed to a wording mistake. I say this only because from a game mechanics standpoint, as opposed to a semantic standpoint, shot and destroyed mean two very different things in game terms. In situations like this I advocate using the mechanical terminology and leaving the Pluperfect-ramalamadingdong to our friends in the English and Latin departments :P. I mean seriously, based on the way things are written in all the codices and rulebooks how many GW rule writers do you think actually have english degrees :)

 

I wonder if Monopoly would be this popular if you needed to bring in grammar to attempt and parse out the rules, while still being left with the question of if I landed on your property did I actually have to pay you.

[Zacharijah]

Considering how much fluff writing each codex is filled with, and how huge an industry GW games has become, I think it's fair to assume the writers they hire are professionals. As to which degrees they have, I have no idea, but I would expect them to be proficient in grammar, and the rules to be reviewed and edited a silly amount of times before being published. Of course, this does not mean that there are no grey areas or downright errors, as we all know. :lol:

 

However, and I understand if people see things differently and choose to play by their own interpretations, I don't consider the disputed line all that ambiguous. To me, "The unit that shot it" in the same sentence as "if a transport is destroyed" means "the unit that shot and destroyed it". I'm a little surprised there hasn't been an official ruling on this, though, considering how many people seem to disagree with that interpretation.

 

Edit: As for Monopoly, the more complex a game is, the more chances of situations like these. I'm glad there are so relatively few of them, though, compared to what I've seen in WHFB, especially in earlier editions of the game. Because yes, Monopoly would clearly be less fun if the rules were repeatedly disputed based on wording and grammar. :)

[Vanor]

Here's the passage from page 67, BRB.

 

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.

 

After reading it I'm starting to lean more towards only the unit that destroyed the transport can assault it. Because of the phrase "a ranged attack" which hasn't been in any of the quotes I remember seeing so far.

 

The term "that shot it" seems to be referring to the ranged attack that caused the destroyed result, and not referring to the transport itself.

 

I wonder if Monopoly would be this popular if you needed to bring in grammar to attempt and parse out the rules, while still being left with the question of if I landed on your property did I actually have to pay you.

 

True :) But how many message boards are there for discussing the rules for Monopoly?

 

I enjoy debates of this nature, but only because they're on a msg board and I don't have anything better to do... If this came up during a game I'd be much more inclined to make a quick judgment and get back to the game.

[Roland Durendal]

In light humoredness, my boss caught me writing up one of my responses and inquired what had me flustered. Embarrassed as I was (for not only being caught basically talking about games during work hours and not doing work, in addition to the fact it was a rules debate from a miniatures game...), I tried to explain the scenario to her and even used some things I had lying on my desk to make the picture clear. After outlying my points and those of people who disagree with me, SHE AND I got into a debate on the wording. She sided with the other camp.

 

Oh and she doesn't play 40k and has no idea what it is.

 

Oh how I love 40k.

[tahrikmili]

In light humoredness, my boss caught me writing up one of my responses and inquired what had me flustered. Embarrassed as I was (for not only being caught basically talking about games during work hours and not doing work, in addition to the fact it was a rules debate from a miniatures game...), I tried to explain the scenario to her and even used some things I had lying on my desk to make the picture clear. After outlying my points and those of people who disagree with me, SHE AND I got into a debate on the wording. She sided with the other camp.

 

Oh and she doesn't play 40k and has no idea what it is.

 

Oh how I love 40k.

 

This is your opportunity to get her into wargaming. Take some minis to work tomorrow and keep them on your desk. She'll inquire. (Is she hot? :P)

[Sparhawk]

I wonder if Monopoly would be this popular if you needed to bring in grammar to attempt and parse out the rules, while still being left with the question of if I landed on your property did I actually have to pay you.

 

True ;) But how many message boards are there for discussing the rules for Monopoly?

 

I enjoy debates of this nature, but only because they're on a msg board and I don't have anything better to do... If this came up during a game I'd be much more inclined to make a quick judgment and get back to the game.

 

Oh I wasn't impugning the merits of a rousing debate into the 40k rulebook. My favorite times on the B&C are spent trawling this sub-forum and looking into the interesting rules quandries that we are constantly faced with. I actually meant my statement to be an affirmation of 40k by bringing up that a less interesting game that faced similar discussions would not be a game for long! :P

 

How many other games have people arguing grammar using latin to give the examples? I really truly love this game!

[Marshal Wilhelm]

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.

 

Why wouldn't they just assault the disembarked passengers anyway? or better yet, save their ineffective fire until after the melta unit destroys the transport and then fire at <<insert nasty CC squad of doom>>

I don't understand the circumstances of your point ~ unless there is some obscure thing I am missing, what you have said is absolutely no benefit and thus, has no desirability for those wanting "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. "

 

 

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".

 

A+. Koremu ftw!

[Zacharijah]

Why wouldn't they just assault the disembarked passengers anyway? or better yet, save their ineffective fire until after the melta unit destroys the transport and then fire at <<insert nasty CC squad of doom>>

I don't understand the circumstances of your point ~ unless there is some obscure thing I am missing, what you have said is absolutely no benefit and thus, has no desirability for those wanting "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. "

I think what you're missing is the "Squad A fires the flamer at the rear armor of a rhino in hopes of doing some damage" part. The player might want to save the heavy-hitting shots in the other unit for something besides the transport in question. In that case, it might make sense to try to pop the transport with smaller guns and hope for a destroyed result.

 

As I mentioned above, both ways of seeing the rule would require interpretation. There is no 100% unambiguous way of reading the sentence. However, to me, the placing of the word "shot" and the singular determiner "the" strongly suggests that the unit who destroyed the transport is the only one who gets to break the rule about not assaulting something if you've shot at something else.

 

If any unit who shot at the transport is allowed to assult the passengers, the rule wording is grammatically incorrect. If only one unit (the one who destroyed the transport) is allowed to assault the passengers, the line uses the word "shot" somewhat ambiguously.

[Sparhawk]

As I've said previously I am much more inclined to believe that the BRB includes a grammatcial error rather than believe that the word shot is equivalent to destroyed. I think this is currently a situation where one should discuss the scenario with your opponent prior to the game to make sure that everyone is on the same page.

 

I will concede that the part of the sentence before the comma is really what gives me pause concerning the entire situation.

[Dave Rogers]

It seems to me that there's a slightly different question here than the precise meaning of the words "the unit that shot it", and that's the broader context of the assaulting rules.

 

This is a question I honestly don't know the answer to, and I can't find it in the rulebook:

 

Suppose a unit is within assault range of two enemy units in its firing turn, chooses one of them to fire at, and due to some awesome brilliance at dice-rolling, manages to wipe it out; is it then prohibited from assaulting at all, because it can only assault the unit that it shot at and that unit no longer exists? It seems that, in that circumstance, it's almost a drawback to have shot so effectively, because if one model of the target unit were left and passed its morale check then the shooting unit could assault both target units. However, the most literal interpretation of the rules suggests that, if the target unit no longer exists, then the shooting unit is still prohibited from attacking any other unit, because it must first assault the target unit before carrying out multiple assaults against other units, and it cannot do so.

 

If a unit can wipe out one enemy and then assault another, then the sentence "However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers" is doing no more than offering a reminder that the rules do not prohibit the unit that shot it from attacking the passengers, because the transport and the passengers are different units. If a unit is not allowed to destroy one unit and then assault another in the same player turn, then the sentence becomes a statement of a special case and has the force of a rule.

 

In either case the wording could be much clearer (either by substituting "unit(s)" for "unit" if any of the shooting units can assault, or "destroyed" for "shot" if units that shot but didn't kill are prohibited from assaulting), but in the former case it wouldn't be an issue because the situation would be covered by the rules elsewhere.

 

So is there a definitive answer?

 

Dave

[Zacharijah]

As far as I'm aware, if a unit shoots at something, whatever the result of said shooting, it is prohibited from assaulting anything else. Assaulting disembarking passengers from a recently destroyed transport is an exception to that rule, hence the debated line in the rulebook.

[JamesI]

Zacharijah has it right. If you shoot one thing, you can only assault that thing (with the exceptions of the guys who had been in a transport if you shot the transport and you can still multi charge as long as you declare the charge against the guys you shot).

[Agrab]

I was leaning towards the camp of anything that shot at it (it refers to the now destroyed tank) prior to reading this argument. It is logical to infer that if something shot at an Item, the termination of said item does not effect their reaction. If they blew it up, then they could assault the troops, which seems to imply that they couldn't even if they failed.

 

Now, of course, if the other side is correct, how does this handle glancing it to death? If no shot actually destroyed it, but they slowly ripped off parts until it was dead, which unit actually destroyed it?

[Vanor]

if the target unit no longer exists, then the shooting unit is still prohibited from attacking any other unit

 

This is in fact how the rules work.

 

If you shoot something and that unit is destroyed in the shooting phase, the shooting unit can not assault anything in the assault phase.