Question about shooting transports and assaulting passengers

[Zacharijah]

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?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Surely, a glancing hit that destroys a transport would still count as shooting?

 

As far as I can tell, only one shot will ever be the shot that finally destroys a vehicle, no matter how damaged a vehicle is before the shot hits. The unit that fired that last shot would be the one that gets to assault the passengers afterwards.

[Agrab]

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?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Surely, a glancing hit that destroys a transport would still count as shooting?

 

As far as I can tell, only one shot will ever be the shot that finally destroys a vehicle, no matter how damaged a vehicle is before the shot hits. The unit that fired that last shot would be the one that gets to assault the passengers afterwards.

 

my question is how can we define that shot as a destroy shot, when it in-of-itself does not destroy it, rather it imobolizes, then dearms, then destroys it

[Zacharijah]

my question is how can we define that shot as a destroy shot, when it in-of-itself does not destroy it, rather it imobolizes, then dearms, then destroys it

If a shot results in a destroyed vehicle, then that shot would be the one that destroyed it. It doesn't matter what result you rolled on the damage table; if the vehicle ends up wrecked or destroyed after a shot is fired, then that shot is the one that destroyed the vehicle.

 

In other words, "Destroyed" does not refer to rolling a 5 or a 6 on the damage table. It refers to the end result being either "Wrecked" or "Destroyed".

[Hackbar]

This debate is, I think, putting a lot more thought into the rule than it's own writer did. Carefully considered Grammar chosen to imply singularity rather than stating it outright? Latin? IMO, the guy was just trying to say that any unit that shot at a transport can then assault the passengers if the transport pops in the same shooting phase. I think the more strict interpretation, even if arguably closer to RAW, is illogical and not in keeping with the spirit of the game. \

 

For one thing, mechanization of one's army is not and should not be a be-all end-all protection against melee for one's army. The interpretation that only the one single unit responsible for the killing blow may assault essentially makes assaulting units in a transport a total crapshoot. One cannot reliably take advantage of this exception to the normal assault rules because one cannot predict which unit will land the killing blow, if any. It is better for the assault squad with the melta gun not to use it, lest they be prohibited from assaulting. This, in turn, makes it much, much harder to set up an assault on the passengers of a destroyed transport since the intended assaulters should not shoot at all. I believe that this is against the spirit of the game, as it greatly reduces the primary usefulness of melta weaponry in both balanced (i.e. tac marines) and dedicated assault units.

 

 

We already have the counter intuitive situation where assault units by and large are reluctant to shoot at the units they intend to charge for fear that the enemy might break and flee out of assault range. I'd hate to see yet another reason for assault units never to use their ranged weaponry.

[Zacharijah]

The "shoot at one thing and you can't assult anything else" rule is fairly central to the game, and it is far from intuitive. However, it is in the game in order to keep a certain balance going. I believe the same is the case with this rule.

 

I rather like the idea that being stowed in a tank means you're fairly safe against melee attacks. One unit with the right weaponry who manages to pop the tank should be allowed to assault the disembarking passengers, IMO, but if anyone who shot at the transport could assault the passengers, that means you can start speculating in which weapons you'd rather use for something else.

 

If you want to be sure your assault troops can assault the passengers, have them hold their fire until you've exhausted your other options. If the devastators on the hill manage to pop it first, great! No problem, your assault troops even get to shoot at the passengers before assaulting them. The situation only becomes troublesome if you try your assault troops' luck at popping the transport first. If you want that extra chance to have your devastators shoot at something else, you're going to have to pay for it.

 

I don't see how that isn't in the spirit of the game, to be honest.

[Mordekiem]

If you shot at the transport you can assault the occupants. Who destroyed it does not matter.

 

The rulebook does not have any qualifiers about having to be the destroyer of the transport to assault, only that you shot at it.

 

Adding your own qualifiers because you feel the intent of the rules is different is not RAW.

 

Hope that helps. ;)

[Isiah]

Adding your own qualifiers because you feel the intent of the rules is different is not RAW.

 

That's one opinion yes, but there is another. Hence this debate!

[Mordekiem]

Adding your own qualifiers because you feel the intent of the rules is different is not RAW.

 

That's one opinion yes, but there is another. Hence this debate!

Not my opinion. That is RAW.

 

Adding in extra qualifiers that do not exist in the rulebook is opinion. ;)

[Commander Sasha]

At this point in the discussion, I am adding this rule to my 'House rulings/FAQ' for my junior gaming group, and although I think RAI should fall on the 'All units that shot can assault', I agree with the grammatical opinions that hold that The unit (no plural) means only the successful vehicle popper gets to play with the contents.

 

The guys that failed ducked and dived away after failing; that their Devastator brothers finished the job whilst they froze is by-the-by!

 

I'm also choosing this option to discourage termagants swarming a vehicle that they couldn't have popped, and similar mass CC abuses!

[Zacharijah]

Adding your own qualifiers because you feel the intent of the rules is different is not RAW.

 

That's one opinion yes, but there is another. Hence this debate!

Not my opinion. That is RAW.

 

Adding in extra qualifiers that do not exist in the rulebook is opinion. :(

Have you read the entire thread?

 

There is no clear RAW here. There are two possible interpretations, but both are just that - interpretations. One interpretation chooses to ignore the wording "the unit" (singular), the other chooses to read "shot" as "destroyed" based on the wording in the sentence. In other words, the rule contradicts itself. If it were as simple as you seem to think, we wouldn't be having this debate.

[Agrab]

Adding your own qualifiers because you feel the intent of the rules is different is not RAW.

 

That's one opinion yes, but there is another. Hence this debate!

Not my opinion. That is RAW.

 

Adding in extra qualifiers that do not exist in the rulebook is opinion. ;)

Have you read the entire thread?

 

There is no clear RAW here. There are two possible interpretations, but both are just that - interpretations. One interpretation chooses to ignore the wording "the unit" (singular), the other chooses to read "shot" as "destroyed" based on the wording in the sentence. In other words, the rule contradicts itself. If it were as simple as you seem to think, we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

HAS ANYBODY THOUGHT THAT THE UNIT IMPLIES each singular unit that shot it, not the specific one that destroyed it

[Zacharijah]

HAS ANYBODY THOUGHT THAT THE UNIT IMPLIES each singular unit that shot it, not the specific one that destroyed it

Reading the thread would answer that question for you. Yes, someone has thought that it does; that is what this entire thread is about. But as mentioned several times above, that would mean that the sentence was grammatically incorrect.

[Agrab]

HAS ANYBODY THOUGHT THAT THE UNIT IMPLIES each singular unit that shot it, not the specific one that destroyed it

Reading the thread would answer that question for you. Yes, someone has thought that it does; that is what this entire thread is about. But as mentioned several times above, that would mean that the sentence was grammatically incorrect.

 

no it wouldn't. In English, the word 'the' is not used to mean a singularity all of the time. Rather, it can be used to reference a singularity out of the group, while allowing for the remainder of the group to later be taken out (read list)

[stinkenheim]

the section of the line 'the unit that shot' implies the singularity, otherwise it would be phrased 'a unit that shot', or 'any unit that shot'.

[Mordekiem]

Have you read the entire thread?

There is a whole thread here to read?!! OMG why did not enyone tells me?!!

:RTBBB: ;) :rolleyes:

 

I agree that the grammar in the entire rulebook is not the best. They definately could have written the note and a lot of other things much clearer.

 

However, if one reads the entire note in the context given they are referencing one unit. They are saying what options a unit has that fired at a transport. They are not disallowing other units of doing the same thing. If you look at the rules for shooting earlier in the book they also describe the steps a single unit takes. Does that mean only one unit in your army can shoot?

 

The note also states that if the vehicle is destroyed "by a ranged attack". It does not say or require that the ranged attack come from a specific unit.

 

"the unit that shot it", it being the transport, not the weapon that destroyed it. The problem here with assuming that this refers to one (and only one) unit is that would also imply that one (and only one) unit can shoot at the vehicle. This interpretation creates a whole new series of issues.

 

And this "the" is just one interpretation. If you look at the other references they are open to other units. Why does it say "a ranged attack" instead of 'the units ranged attack'? Why does it say "the unit that shot it" instead of 'the unit that destroyed it'? GW had plenty of chances to clarify this and most of them point to any unit, not a specific one.

 

 

Also, consider RAI. What reason would GW create a rule like this? What is the point? Fluffwise all an armies shooting is simultaneously so who really knows who blew it up? And why would a squad be frozen if they failed? At that point both they and the devs are up and shooting.

 

Also as I said before the wording itself implies that any weapon can destroy the transport and a unit that shot at it may assault. Taken in context with the entire paragraph and the rules as a whole is seems pretty clear. When you have a simple conclusion that makes sense, why try to make it complicated by adding all sorts of qualifiers and such that are not really present? The counter argument hinges only on bad grammar. There is no other basis for it. No context, no precedent set by the rules previously and no RAI to back it up.

 

But if you cannot come to a reasonable conclusion with your opponent then dice it off. So I propose we do that! 4+ we let any unit that shot the transport assault regardless of who destroyed it.

 

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s118/Mordekiem/PICT0346-1.jpg

 

I rolled a 4! :lol:

[Roland Durendal]

Actually Mord, to counter you argument, let us read the whole quote, and I shall then parse it's meaning using (gasp!) grammar and logic (two things GW apparently sucks at):

 

The Quote:

 

Note: remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with it's lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, if a transport is destroyed (by 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.

 

Here kids, is where everyone is getting it all mixed up. Firstly, the note is referencing a single unit throughout the whole quote. The hypothetical unit that "shot" the transport in the second half of the quote (after the "however) is a reference to the hypothetical lascannon toting squad earlier on. This is a simple sentence, where the author is carrying over the squad used as an example in the first part of the rule, into the second half of the rule to establish an exception by using continuity with an idea already expressed and clarified in the earlier sentence. Moreover, and here's the grammar fun, we all agree that "the unit that shot" is a singular subject, the issue is the "it". People assume "it" refers to the transport, but it doesn't. "It" is set in relation to "a ranged attack", not "a transport". This is where the confusion lies. It is not "the unit that shot it (the transport) may assault...", it is in fact "the unit that shot it (the ranged attack that destroyed the vehicle)...". To make this clearer, let's clean up some of the superfluous language and get at the meat of the sentence:

 

"A transport is destroyed by a ranged attack. The unit that shot may assault..." We see again that "shot" refers to the act of firing a projectile, not the act of targeting. Let us ask ourselves, what did the unit shoot (not target, big difference)? They shot a ranged attack. That ranged attack destroyed the transport. They may now assault the passengers.

 

We do not need the second half of that complex sentence to read "the unit that destroyed", for it the act of destruction is inherent and stated by the fact that "it" relates to an act of shooting a destructive shot, not the act of targeting.

 

So really we can toss out all other debate regarding grammar relating to singular/plural subjects and focus in on the more complex grammar issue of, "to what does 'it' refer?"

 

On this side of the fence, since we have two complex sentences dealing with a hypothetical lascannon squad that is carried over to both parts of the sentence (as I first outlined), coupled with the fact that 'it' relates to the shot which destroys the vehicle, we have the combined hypothetical scenario where a squad with a lascannon shoots it (the lascannon) at a transport and the transport is destroyed. This squad cannot now assault the passengers due to the rules of assault (as stated as the last caveat to this note), but the example and precedent is set. It would have been just as easy to substitute the lascannon squad for a meltagun squad, and thus the exception brought out by the note could be fully seen in action.

 

Grammar rules all. Unless of course you believe grammar is irrelevant to a language.

[Mordekiem]

Actually Mord, to counter you argument, let us read the whole quote, and I shall then parse it's meaning using (gasp!) grammar and logic (two things GW apparently sucks at):

 

Hrm, did I not say, look at the entire note, not just bits of it? :lol:

 

Other than that I gotta say "Wow!" You are making alot of assumptions and leaps of logic. Alot of them are frankly incorrect and make very little sense.

 

"it" refers to the ranged attack? Are you serious? I spose it is possible, but that would be a very, um, interesting way to write and interpret that sentence. Doesn't it make more sense if the "it" referred to the transport? The entire thing would make much more sense.

 

And I have no idea what you are talking about saying shot does not mean target. Targeting has nothing to do with it. And just because you shot something does not mean that you did any damage to it. Assuming that "shot" means destroyed the transport is an assumption on your part. Taken at face value shot means shot.

 

The lascannon is an interesting twist. But to me it shows that while the sentences are discussing shooting and assaulting the example of a lascannon obviously does not talk about the unit in the next example since lascannons cannot normally shoot then assault.

 

Overall there are two sides to the argument. The simplest one wins with me. If you have to wordsmith multiple and come up with some sketchy grammar rules then I can't really support that over a much simpler solution.

 

Besides, I rolled a 4! :D

[Agrab]

the section of the line 'the unit that shot' implies the singularity, otherwise it would be phrased 'a unit that shot', or 'any unit that shot'.

 

What is the subject of the sentence? The subject is the vehicle. The unit that shot it is each and every unit that fired at the vehicle this turn, even if they didn't destroy it. Nowhere does the sentence imply that the unit that destroyed it, rather that shot it.

[Roland Durendal]

Hahah I saw the 4+ Mord.

 

 

But in all honesty, the "it" can refer to either the shot or vehicle, as both are technically grammatically correct. For in current English grammar, to shoot has a duakl meaning:

 

It can be to shoot AT something (i.e. targeting, in this case the transport)

 

Or it can be to shoot something (not targeting, but the act of projecting an object, for example a bullet, and in this instance a ranged attack that destroys the vehicle)

 

Let's look at some simple non-40k sentences to illustrate how both are grammatically accurate uses of the phrase:

 

"I shot the apple" - shot in this instance refers to the act of targeting the apple and then launching a projectile at it.

"I shot an arrow" - shot refers to the physical act of firing the projectile.

 

Now we can wordsmith this some more and say:

 

"I shot an arrow at an apple". What is shot? The arrow or apple? Since the direct object of the action is "arrow", the action "shot" refers to it, i.e. the physical process of launching a projectile.

 

Conversely, saying "I shot an apple with an arrow", the whole sentence meaning has shifted, for the direct object (i.e. the object receiving the action) is the apple. In this sentence "shot" refers the process of targeting the apple with an arrow and then launching said arrow at it.

 

So, that sentence we all are debating, really makes logical sense either way. The issue arises as to what "it" refers to, the "long range attack" or "the transport". Interpret "it" as you will, I still stand by the it makes more sense game play wise.

[Zacharijah]

Overall there are two sides to the argument.

I'm glad you realise this. Your first post or two sounded like you didn't.

 

The simplest one wins with me.

As I've mentioned a couple of times now, both sides of the argument require interpretation.

 

You assume "the unit" means "any unit". I assume "shot" means "destroyed". Which is the simplest one?

 

I back up my opinion with two main arguments:

 

1: My way of reading the rule is the grammatically correct one. Yours presumes that the sentence has faulty grammar.

 

2: The second half of the sentence ("the unit that shot it") refers to the first half of the sentence ("If a transport is destroyed by a shot").

 

They are saying what options a unit has that fired at a transport. They are not disallowing other units of doing the same thing.

This is correct. They are saying that all units can attempt to destroy it, and (since this is only possible once) that if they succeed, they get to assault the passengers.

 

I don't agree with Roland - in my opinion, "it" clearly refers to "the transport", and therefore "if a transport is destroyed, the unit that shot it" refers to the unit that fired the shot destroying the transport.

 

Now can we please leave the condescending remarks out of the debate? We've done fairly well up until now.

[Zacharijah]

the section of the line 'the unit that shot' implies the singularity, otherwise it would be phrased 'a unit that shot', or 'any unit that shot'.

 

What is the subject of the sentence? The subject is the vehicle. The unit that shot it is each and every unit that fired at the vehicle this turn, even if they didn't destroy it. Nowhere does the sentence imply that the unit that destroyed it, rather that shot it.

The only time the vehicle is the subject is in the first half of the sentence, "If a transport is destroyed". How does this mean that any unit gets to assault if they shoot at it? If you're referring to "the unit that shot it", the vehicle ("it") is the object of the sentence, not the subject. I still don't see how this backs up your statement that any unit who shoots gets to assault, though.

 

Yes, the sentence does imply the unit that destroyed it, rather than shot it:

 

If [transport is destroyed by a shot]

Then [the unit that shot it]

 

This is, in my opinion, a very clear implication of the second half of the sentence directly referring to the first half of the sentence. But again - both versions require some interpretation. There is no "this is obviously the only way of reading it", or we wouldn't be having this debate.

[tahrikmili]

Anyone called GW to ask? Not that it's definitive by any means but.. Just for giggles.

[Agrab]

Hahah I saw the 4+ Mord.

 

 

But in all honesty, the "it" can refer to either the shot or vehicle, as both are technically grammatically correct. For in current English grammar, to shoot has a duakl meaning:

 

It can be to shoot AT something (i.e. targeting, in this case the transport)

 

Or it can be to shoot something (not targeting, but the act of projecting an object, for example a bullet, and in this instance a ranged attack that destroys the vehicle)

 

Let's look at some simple non-40k sentences to illustrate how both are grammatically accurate uses of the phrase:

 

"I shot the apple" - shot in this instance refers to the act of targeting the apple and then launching a projectile at it.

"I shot an arrow" - shot refers to the physical act of firing the projectile.

 

Now we can wordsmith this some more and say:

 

"I shot an arrow at an apple". What is shot? The arrow or apple? Since the direct object of the action is "arrow", the action "shot" refers to it, i.e. the physical process of launching a projectile.

 

Conversely, saying "I shot an apple with an arrow", the whole sentence meaning has shifted, for the direct object (i.e. the object receiving the action) is the apple. In this sentence "shot" refers the process of targeting the apple with an arrow and then launching said arrow at it.

 

So, that sentence we all are debating, really makes logical sense either way. The issue arises as to what "it" refers to, the "long range attack" or "the transport". Interpret "it" as you will, I still stand by the it makes more sense game play wise.

 

 

The unit that shot it can only refer to the vehicle as the destroyed shot is not used as a phrase, let alone as the subject. The only was the 'it' could refer to the shot is if the shot is placed as a subject or implied as such, which it is not, anywhere.

[Agrab]

the section of the line 'the unit that shot' implies the singularity, otherwise it would be phrased 'a unit that shot', or 'any unit that shot'.

 

What is the subject of the sentence? The subject is the vehicle. The unit that shot it is each and every unit that fired at the vehicle this turn, even if they didn't destroy it. Nowhere does the sentence imply that the unit that destroyed it, rather that shot it.

The only time the vehicle is the subject is in the first half of the sentence, "If a transport is destroyed". How does this mean that any unit gets to assault if they shoot at it? If you're referring to "the unit that shot it", the vehicle ("it") is the object of the sentence, not the subject. I still don't see how this backs up your statement that any unit who shoots gets to assault, though.

 

Yes, the sentence does imply the unit that destroyed it, rather than shot it:

 

If [transport is destroyed by a shot]

Then [the unit that shot it]

 

This is, in my opinion, a very clear implication of the second half of the sentence directly referring to the first half of the sentence. But again - both versions require some interpretation. There is no "this is obviously the only way of reading it", or we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

their is only one subject to the entire sentence, and that is the tank. Later, the it must refer to the subject, or it would violate english rules.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm also choosing this option to discourage termagants swarming a vehicle that they couldn't have popped, and similar mass CC abuses!

 

I don't think it'll have that effect. A unit that can't possibly have popped a vehicle just doesn't shoot at all, then they can still assault its occupants after it's been popped.

 

Dave