Question about shooting transports and assaulting passengers

[Zacharijah]

Sorry - double posted. This interface doesn't like me. :blink:

[Zacharijah]

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.

 

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Here is a grammatical breakdown of the sentence:

 

[However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack] - This is an adverbial phrase: Basically, it defines certain conditions under which the main clause functions.

 

[the unit that shot it] - This is the subject phrase (or the subject, if you will). The main clause (or main sentence) begins here.

 

[may assault] - Verbal phrase.

 

[the now disembarked passengers] - Object phrase; this is the direct object.

 

[if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules] - Another adverbial phrase.

 

The subject phrase can be broken down into [the unit] - subject - [that] - a link - [shot] - verb - [it] - object.

 

The subject (the entity doing something) is the unit. The object (the entity having something done to it) is the disembarked passengers.

 

The only way the transport is a subject is in the adverbial phrase in the beginning. This has nothing to do with the actual subject of the sentence (the unit), and you are mistaken in thinking that the subject of the adverbial phrase must be the same as the subject of the main sentence.

 

I'm currently finishing my master's degree in English. Forgive me if I got sidetracked there, but this is something I've been working with for the last four years.

 

Edit: Clarification

[DuncanSpence]

Very interesting breakdown, but you missed out one thing - what conculsion did you draw about how many units can assault the passengers?

 

Here are my thoughts.

 

Apart from the first phrase (which is referring to models in a firing unit), the entire section only ever refers to a singular unit so I believe that it is only the 'popping unit' (great phrase) that gets to assault. That is the simplest reading of the section to me - to read it any other way I have to turn one of the singular terms into a plural, or turn one of the difinte articles (the) into a wider expressions (any).

 

To allow every unit that shot at the vehicle to assault the passengers, would only take a simple change from '...the unit that shot it...' to '...the units that shot it...', or from '...the unit that shot it...' to '...any units that shot it...'.

 

However, if you're concentrating your fire on my tiny little rhino with its combat squad, you're not shooting at (and not assaulting) any of my other units, the more weapons you train on it that have little chance of destroying it the better!

[Mordekiem]

Hehe, the grammar is bad enough that there is no 'ironclad' way to read it. The entire sentence is messed up. You could give an English teacher a heart attack by showing them these rules written by 'Professionals'.

 

Anyone who says otherwise is full of you know what. :ph34r:

 

That is why looking at it in the simplest and easiest way is best. 'It' can refer to the transport or the ranged attack.

 

It gives you two options; 'the unit that shot the transport' or 'the unit that shot a ranged attack'. Which one sounds like a more likely scenario? In the second scenario it is much more likely that they would have said 'the unit that destroyed the transport'. That is much easier than saying 'the unit that shot a ranged attack that destroyed the transport'.

 

Or maybe that "it" refers to the unit! You also have another 'it' later in the sentence. What does that refer to? using your argument it could also be the ranged attack, but we know ranged attacks cannot assault!

 

Also, the same logic that you are using saying "the" unit means that it is the one specific unit is countered by "a" ranged attack. If 'the' is a specific and 'a' is a general then the ranged attack can be any ranged attack. "the" does not really make sense in this sentence either way. Either it was the wrong word choice or the whole rest of the sentence needs to be re-written. The whole thing is one huge run on sentence.

 

Again, it is much simpler to assume they meant a unit or any unit than to assume the entire sentence is incorrect and try to figure out what they meant. Why throw out the entire sentence because of one small typo?

 

Also, what is the purpose behind a rule like this? How does this fit into the philosophy behind the rules set as a whole? It doesn't. A bit of common sense here goes a long way. You don't make people play their terminators without terminator armor because they forgot to mention it under wargear do you?

 

 

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

You're fired.

[Zacharijah]

Again, it is much simpler to assume they meant a unit or any unit than to assume the entire sentence is incorrect and try to figure out what they meant. Why throw out the entire sentence because of one small typo?

I'm no longer sure what you're referring to, to be honest. The whole "a ranged attack" scenario makes very little sense to me. Nobody is throwing out anything here, and it sounds a lot like you're trying to make the opposite point of view a lot more complicated than it is.

 

Scenario 1: Instead of "the unit", the sentence should have read "any unit".

 

Scenario 2: Instead of "shot", the sentence should have read "destroyed".

 

That's it. That's really all there is to it. I just don't get why you find Scenario 2 so much more complicated than Scenario 1.

 

 

And Duncan - In my opinion, the rule is "the unit who destroyed the transport gets to assault it", for a number of reasons.

 

To me, it makes perfect sense to refer to the unit that destroyed the transport as "the unit that shot it", since the adverbial phrase beginning the sentence already introduced the scenario of the transport being destroyed by a shot. The wording should have been clearer, I agree, but I don't see the huge leap of faith that some people seem to find is required to arrive at my conclusion.

 

I think it would be much easier to just ask Alessio Cavatore about this. :nuke:

[Mordekiem]

I'm no longer sure what you're referring to, to be honest. The whole "a ranged attack" scenario makes very little sense to me. Nobody is throwing out anything here, and it sounds a lot like you're trying to make the opposite point of view a lot more complicated than it is.

 

Scenario 1: Instead of "the unit", the sentence should have read "any unit".

 

Scenario 2: Instead of "shot", the sentence should have read "destroyed".

 

That's it. That's really all there is to it. I just don't get why you find Scenario 2 so much more complicated than Scenario 1.

That is the meat of it. But how you arrive to scenario #2 is much more complicated than just changing one word. Scenario #1 really is just changing one word.

 

But let me ask, which is more likely? That the writer accidentally wrote 'the' instead of 'a' or 'any'. Something that would be a relatively easy grammatical error. Or that the writer meant to say 'destroyed' instead of 'shot'? Two completely different words with completely different meanings that would rarely be interchanged?

[Hackbar]

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?

 

^This is more or less my line of thought.

Disclaimer: everything hereafter is my opinion. I am not an English major, (BA in History) nor a GW rules guru, nor do I claim to have a window into the minds of the BRB authors.

 

I agree that, if we assume the writers went over the sentence with a fine-toothed comb, a grammar handbook, and their English professor in for consultation, the sentence does seem to lean towards the 'only one unit' interpretation.

If we assume that the 'only one unit' interpretation is correct, we then jump to the conclusion that this one unit must be the unit that fired the destroying shot.

 

I think that this is where the difference in opinion actually lies. I think "the unit that shot" is simply a reference to the hypothetical unit from the previous sentence and not necessarily a reference to the unit that shot the ranged attack that destroyed the transport.* The terms indicating only one unit are used because the example focuses on the options available to a single hypothetical unit, as is commonly done when writing examples, and not with the intention of implying that these rules may only be applied to one unit in a given turn.

 

I read the note as meaning this: hypothetical unit A may not shoot at both the vehicle and the forcefully-disembarked passengers, because shooting is simultaneous, etc. If, however, the transport in question was destroyed in the shooting phase, then Hypothetical unit A may assault the passengers of the transport it shot.

I don't think the BRB's wording indicates that the 'a ranged attack' that destroyed the transport must have come from 'the unit' whose option to assault is being discussed.

 

I have difficulty accepting arguments that allowing multiple units that shot the transport to assault is unbalanced in favor of melee units. I don't want to get into a long and detailed discussion of the delicate balance of a game I admit I am relatively new to, (at least I assume that I am newer than most of the people on this forum) so I'm going to avoid typing out a detailed argument that would likely be picked to pieces and lead to an off-topic flame-war.

 

*Speaking as an American, and therefore one unfamiliar with the common connotations and usages of words in the UK, I find the usage of 'shot' tends heavily towards 'i shot the target' rather than 'i shot an arrow' and therefore the interpretation of 'the unit that shot' as 'the unit that shot the ranged attack that destroyed the transport' seems far-fetched to me when compared to 'the unit that shot the transport.'

[Hackbar]

Yay, double post!

 

... And my argument has been made obsolete by developments while I was typing! I'll edit it later.

[Zacharijah]

But let me ask, which is more likely? That the writer accidentally wrote 'the' instead of 'a' or 'any'. Something that would be a relatively easy grammatical error. Or that the writer meant to say 'destroyed' instead of 'shot'? Two completely different words with completely different meanings that would rarely be interchanged?

First of all, writing "the" instead of "any" is not a "relatively easy grammatical error". We're talking about a sentence in a rulebook, written by professionals, where it makes a huge difference whether a rule says one thing or the other.

 

As I've mentioned a number of times in this thread, I don't consider the words "shot" and "destroyed" at all different in this context. The adverbial phrase in the start of the sentence introduces a scenario where "shot" is indicative of "destroyed":

 

"If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, [then] the unit who shot it (...)". "The unit who shot it" is completely dependent on the first part, and would make no sense without it. In my opinion (and this is based on 20+ years of reading English literature and 4 years of studying for a master's degree in English), "The unit who shot it" can easily, and grammatically correctly, refer to the unit that destroyed the transport with a ranged attack.

 

Another way of phrasing the second half of the sentence would be "the unit who did it". Although less elegantly phrased, this would also refer to the unit who destroyed it. If the sentence read "If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit who did it (...)", I doubt that anyone would claim that "did" and "destroyed" are two different words, and therefore anyone can assault. "Shot" and "destroyed" are different words, but I hope you can see why they can mean the same in the right context.

 

If you look hard enough, most rules can be interpreted differently than the writer intended them. In this case, I don't think the writer intended the rule to be ambiguous. I think he simply assumed (as I did) that "the unit who shot it" points to the "transport goes boom" scenario in the adverbial phrase in the beginning of the sentence.

 

You're of a different opinion than me, and that's all good and well. What I don't get is why you insist that yours is the only logical one. You assume the writer made a mistake and wrote "the" instead of "any". Your scenario replaces one thing for another in order to make the rule fit your interpretation. My scenario doesn't change anything. How is mine any more complicated or circumstantial than yours?

[Hackbar]

Zach:

 

Your reasoning is sound, your argument is firm, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. I can't speak for anyone else, but as for myself the main reason that I interpret the rules as I do, willfully insisting that the author's intent was different than the literal, grammatically correct meaning of the words he wrote, is that I can't imagine any reason for such a rule.

 

Why on earth would they suddenly, out of all the rules in the book, create a rule so subtle and arbitrarily restrictive on the actions of the players without offering the slightest hint of justification, explanation, or even clarification? I cannot imagine that, in a game where they have intentionally made it nearly impossible to prevent the enemy from ever getting into melee, they would intentionally write a rule that is so restrictive of assaults in such a strange way, in such specific circumstances, and for no clear reason.

 

Units that have no chance of popping a transport will just refrain from shooting and thereby bypass the restriction, so if it's a balance tool it certainly isn't protecting valuable passengers from being jumped by 3 squads of assault terminators when their rhino breaks. Really, the only units that are weakened by such a rule are those versatile units who could conceivably both destroy a transport in shooting and then reasonably be expected to charge its contents: Units like tactical squads, ranged Terminators, dreadnoughts, etc. I cannot imagine that GW would want units which were designed intentionally to be so versatile to be shackled with such a seemingly arbitrary restriction on that versatility and then not make sure to point out their reasoning for it or at least reinforce it with an example of how this works when more than one unit is involved.

 

To give an example, let's take 2 tactical combat squads with powerfist and meltagun. Assume they are within 12" of a rhino containing some big, dangerous squad. Maybe it's sternguard. Whatever it is, you want it dead real bad, or at the very least you want it busy getting its face punched in rather than free to fight as it likes. Both squads move up into melta range and open fire.

 

Scenario 1: both shots miss, or otherwise fail to destroy. Both squads are now permitted to charge the vehicle in the hopes of destroying it.

Scenario 2: first melta shot destroys the transport. both squads are now permitted to charge the disembarked passengers

Scenario 3: first melta shot misses, second destroys the transport. Only one squad is now permitted to charge the passengers, with the first squad simply doing nothing.

 

Can anyone give me a reason why Possibility 3 should restrict one squad from doing anything with its assault phase? Keep in mind that all shooting is simultaneous so 'they saw that they didn't pop the tank, and then took cover' doesn't make sense, especially when they would have been perfectly happy to charge the tank head on had it survived.

[Sparhawk]

I think the issue I have with your scenario Zach, not to say that it isn't clearly well thought out and very valid, is that while "shot" and "destroyed" may have the same meaning in a myriad of contexts they both have an inherent mechanical meaning. Destroyed is a very specific term that is almost exclusively used to reference results on the vehicle damage table or the complete elimination of a unit from the game, by contrast shot can have a number of different meanings.

 

As I said, I'm not trying to say that your argument is invalid I'm merely trying to explain the issue I have with it. To think how much simpler things would be if the hypothetical were:

Squad A shoots at the Rhino and fails to destroy it.

Squad B shoots at the Rhino and destroys it.

Squad B may assault the disembarked passengers but Squad A may not.

 

I really believe that sometimes the writers narrative zeal gets the better of them. I'm not an english major. I'm an engineer. As an engineer I feel that when writing a series of work instructions, which are essentially rules, it is best to have a dry, unambiguous tone rather then an interesting novel that muddies the point.

[Zacharijah]

Why on earth would they suddenly, out of all the rules in the book, create a rule so subtle and arbitrarily restrictive on the actions of the players without offering the slightest hint of justification, explanation, or even clarification? I cannot imagine that, in a game where they have intentionally made it nearly impossible to prevent the enemy from ever getting into melee, they would intentionally write a rule that is so restrictive of assaults in such a strange way, in such specific circumstances, and for no clear reason.

Isn't this much like the rule that says "If you shoot a unit and kill it, you can't charge anything else", or "your bolters have to shoot at the same target as your missile launcher"? I don't think the rule here is any weirder, or more restrictive, than a number of standard rules in the game, to be honest. The rules aren't there to be realistic, they're there to make the game balanced. Whether they succeed or not is another matter entirely. of course. :)

 

As for why the rule would be there, as I mentioned in an earlier post, you might want to try to save your heavy weapons for another target, hoping to pop the transport with the assault unit itself. With this rule, trying to pop the transport with your assault unit could cost you the initiative needed to assault the disembarking troops. If you want to be sure you can assault the passengers, don't shoot with the assault unit. Instead, make the commitment with the heavy weapons squad, pop the transport, then assault the passengers with the assault unit. It makes sense to me at least. Admittedly, it's very late here, and I'm getting tired.

[Zacharijah]

I think the issue I have with your scenario Zach, not to say that it isn't clearly well thought out and very valid, is that while "shot" and "destroyed" may have the same meaning in a myriad of contexts they both have an inherent mechanical meaning. Destroyed is a very specific term that is almost exclusively used to reference results on the vehicle damage table or the complete elimination of a unit from the game, by contrast shot can have a number of different meanings.

 

As I said, I'm not trying to say that your argument is invalid I'm merely trying to explain the issue I have with it. To think how much simpler things would be if the hypothetical were:

Squad A shoots at the Rhino and fails to destroy it.

Squad B shoots at the Rhino and destroys it.

Squad B may assault the disembarked passengers but Squad A may not.

 

I really believe that sometimes the writers narrative zeal gets the better of them. I'm not an english major. I'm an engineer. As an engineer I feel that when writing a series of work instructions, which are essentially rules, it is best to have a dry, unambiguous tone rather then an interesting novel that muddies the point.

I completely agree that the rule should have been worded less ambiguously. Especially considering how many times I've seen GW games turn into rule fights. It's probably unrealistic to hope for GW to be clear and precise in every rule in the game, but in this case, no matter which version of the rule one agrees with, the wording is unfortunate. :)

[Hackbar]

Isn't this much like the rule that says "If you shoot a unit and kill it, you can't charge anything else", or "your bolters have to shoot at the same target as your missile launcher"? I don't think the rule here is any weirder, or more restrictive, than a number of standard rules in the game, to be honest. The rules aren't there to be realistic, they're there to make the game balanced. Whether they succeed or not is another matter entirely. of course. :)

 

As for why the rule would be there, as I mentioned in an earlier post, you might want to try to save your heavy weapons for another target, hoping to pop the transport with the assault unit itself. With this rule, trying to pop the transport with your assault unit could cost you the initiative needed to assault the disembarking troops. If you want to be sure you can assault the passengers, don't shoot with the assault unit. Instead, make the commitment with the heavy weapons squad, pop the transport, then assault the passengers with the assault unit. It makes sense to me at least. Admittedly, it's very late here, and I'm getting tired.

 

The difference here is that the two rules you referenced are cases which restrict the players ability to attack multiple different targets in one turn with a single unit, thus diminishing the utility of high-powered super-squads and limiting the total amount of killing that an army can accomplish in a turn. The rule being argued over (and with surprising civility, this being the internet) is a case which is written as an exception to one of the above rules, but effectively limits the player's ability to concentrate the efforts of multiple units on one target: quite the opposite of the above and something which seems rather out of place in 40k as I see it.

 

I appreciate the idea of forcing the player to make difficult choices as to how his limited tactical resources are spent each turn, but I don't think that such choices are particularly absent without a rule arbitrarily restricting the assaulting of the passengers of destroyed transports. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of another rule in which the player is so overtly penalized for focusing multiple units on one task and taking advantage of the versatility of certain units.

[Zacharijah]

The difference here is that the two rules you referenced are cases which restrict the players ability to attack multiple different targets in one turn with a single unit

Forgive me for taking this out of context, but the rule in question is also one which restricts the ability to attack multiple targets in one turn with a single unit. I'm saying that only one unit gets to shoot at the transport as well as assault the passengers - ie the one that popped the transport. The other camp is saying that all units that shoot at the transport should be allowed to assault the passengers. As such, I think my interpretation of the rule is comparable to the two examples.

 

That, or I really need sleep. It's 12 to 6 in the am, so goodnight. :D

[Hackbar]

You can't go to sleep now! One of us might be wrong!

[Zacharijah]

You can't go to sleep now! One of us might be wrong!

Mwehehe, I actually have a drawing of that one standing on my desk in a glass frame. :D

 

I agree that the rule as I read it can be seen as strange. However, the main argument against my interpretation would be that all fire happens simultaneously, and that therefore it would be impossible to see who actually destroyed the transport. The problem with this point is that it is just as silly as the rule it's trying to argue against. Obviously, a unit shooting at a tank would have a fairly sound idea of whether or not their shot destroyed it.*

 

Also, I have long ago given up trying to apply common sense to GW games. Not because they're innately silly**, but because they're very complicated and sometimes need rules that defy common sense but help game balance. Many of the rules for shooting and cover saves can be argued against using common sense. But they're there to create overall game balance. I believe the "only the unit who popped the transport can assault the passengers" rule would be the correct one based on what I mentioned earlier about having to choose which weapons to commit to destroying the transport.

 

* A notable exception being Tom Hanks firing a Colt 45 at a German tank in Saving Private Ryan. B)

** Except Troll Games.

[Ookami_81]

I should start this by saying I'm not a native from an english spoken country, but I studied english for 19 years.

 

I agree with some people here who makes the difference between RAI and RAW.

To me, pretending that "only the unit that destroyed/shot DOWN the transport can assault passengers" is RAI.

RAW, it's "shot", not "shot down", or "destroyed". If the writer wanted to avoid using two times the same word in one sentence, he would have wanted to use "shot DOWN".

 

So if you shoot and fail to destroy the damn transport, and then it's destroyed by your pals a split second later (vox call for support :P ), then you just beat the crap out of the guys that were in it before they know what happens to them.

 

To me there is no argument: RAW it's "shot", RAI if you want to play on that field it's just the same: just too stupid not to shoot the guys because you failed to destroy the APC.

 

I don't know if the translaters are just as good/bad that the original writers, but in my native language the sentence refers to the act of delivering ammunitions onto the transport, and not destroy it.

[Zacharijah]

To me there is no argument: RAW it's "shot"

I don't disagree. My point is that in this case, I believe "shot" refers to "shot and destroyed". I don't think "shot down" would work when not talking about a flying target.

 

Another case where "shot" means more than just "shot at" would be "I shot the sheriff". :P

 

Also, RAW it's "the unit", not "any unit", so both versions of the rule are RAI.

[tahrikmili]

Shot does not mean Shot and Destroyed. Shot means Shot. You are interpreting. As Written, it means Shot, as in the past tense of Shoot. To Shoot does not imply actually hitting a target. As Written, the rule is painfully obvious.

 

'The Unit' does not imply singularity in terms of how many units can assault the disembarked passengers, The Unit only implies singularity with regards to the unit being evaluated for qualifying to assault. The same paragraph can be applied to each unit in the question and more than one could very well qualify for assault. Each would then be The Unit with regards to the qualification process it has passed. This is the way most rules in the book are worded.

 

After four pages of grammatic and rhetoric discussion I can only feel close to this explanation. All others feature more interpretation than this.

[Zacharijah]

To Shoot does not imply actually hitting a target.

I shot the sheriff, but I didn't hit him? I'm afraid you're mistaken. "To shoot at" does not imply hitting a target. "To shoot something" not only implies, it necessitates hitting the target.

 

And perhaps the rule is painfully obvious to you. It isn't to me. At least not painfully obviously meaning what you think it means.

 

'The Unit' does not imply singularity in terms of how many units can assault the disembarked passengers

This would be your opinion, or interpretation. I believe it does. Using the definite article here is quite simply grammatically incorrect if any unit can assault after failing to destroy the transport. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a fact. I don't mean to sound arrogant or demeaning in any way, but on this, the rules of the English language are clear.

 

The question remains if the writer made a mistake and wrote "the" instead of "any", or if he wrote "shot" when he should have been more specific and used "destroyed". This is where interpretation comes in, on both sides of the argument.

[Mordekiem]

To Shoot does not imply actually hitting a target.

I shot the sheriff, but I didn't hit him? I'm afraid you're mistaken. "To shoot at" does not imply hitting a target. "To shoot something" not only implies, it necessitates hitting the target.

Within the context of the rules Tahrikmili is absolutely correct. A unit can shoot at something and not hit it. You can also shoot at a unit, hit it, but not dmg it. You can also shoot at at a unit, hit it, dmg it and not destroy it.

 

Tahrik makes a very good point that shooting and destoying are very specific game terms with very specific game implications. Using one over the other is probably a very concious decision by the 'professional game designers'. I also think he made it very clear in games terms how the phrase "the unit" works. It may not be perfect grammar, but makes more sense than the other interpretation.

 

Why on earth would they suddenly, out of all the rules in the book, create a rule so subtle and arbitrarily restrictive on the actions of the players without offering the slightest hint of justification, explanation, or even clarification? I cannot imagine that, in a game where they have intentionally made it nearly impossible to prevent the enemy from ever getting into melee, they would intentionally write a rule that is so restrictive of assaults in such a strange way, in such specific circumstances, and for no clear reason.

 

Exactly Hackbar! They allow mulitple units to assault everything else. They even allow one unit to assault multiple units. Why would they suddenly restrict a unit from attacking for no other reason? I don't see how this would create any game balance issues?

[Roland Durendal]

Apparently it isn't so obvious, otherwise it would have ended at page 1 and not gone on into page 4. Simple solution? Ask your opponent how they play it before hand (or TO), and go from there. Seeing as we're all fairly knowledgeable in English grammar and the fact that GRAMMATICALLY the sentence can make sense by both interpretations (because after all, that is what both sides are doing: reading the sentence and interpreting what it says), and in fact does, there's really no reason to continue arguing it. Both sides have made valid points, and it really comes down to individual interpretation of the RAW. I'm going to now cast Doom on Mordekeim and have him re-roll his d6 for determing what the official outcome of this rule is.

 

4+, everyone can assault.

 

He re-rolls....

 

 

 

....and gets a 1! For shame! Apparently only the unit that destroyed the transport can assault! :-)

[Mordekiem]

Ah, you forgot about my psychic hood!

 

Let's roll off...

 

Besides, pg 4 isn't that long. How long has the BA shield thread going on? And that one is even more obvious! I won't even ask about Doom of teh nids... :lol:

[DuncanSpence]

Exactly Hackbar! They allow mulitple units to assault everything else. They even allow one unit to assault multiple units. Why would they suddenly restrict a unit from attacking for no other reason? I don't see how this would create any game balance issues?

But you are only allowed to assault the same unit that you shot at, with this one exception.

 

If you're looking for consistency, you should be complaining out how this rule widens what you can assault, not narrows it.