Question about shooting transports and assaulting passengers

[Zacharijah]

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.

No, he is not correct. The line in the book doesn't say "the unit that shot at it", it says "the unit that shot it". If a unit shot a transport, that means it hit 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.

It makes more sense in your opinion. Your interpretation. I've argued how "shot" can easily mean "destroyed", since the second half of the sentence grammatically points back to the first half of the sentence. As I've pointed out a good number of times now, there are two ways of reading the rule. Both require one word replaced with another in order to make perfect sense. Both are interpretations. I can go "my version makes more sense" all I like, but that wouldn't make it true for you, I'm sure.

 

Also, how is using "shot" over "destroyed" a very conscious decision by the 'professional game designers', but writing "the unit" instead of "any unit" was an oopsie?

 

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.

As Duncan correctly points out, the rule doesn't restrict anything. It does the exacty opposite. It allows you to ignore a restriction. Whether or not it's for no clear reason is probably for another thread.

[Mordekiem]

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.

No, he is not correct. The line in the book doesn't say "the unit that shot at it", it says "the unit that shot it". If a unit shot a transport, that means it hit it.

Wow, I think I am done with this thread. If you can't even see the difference in very specific game terms between shooting, hitting, damaging and destroying I think this discussion is over.

[Zacharijah]

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.

No, he is not correct. The line in the book doesn't say "the unit that shot at it", it says "the unit that shot it". If a unit shot a transport, that means it hit it.

Wow, I think I am done with this thread. If you can't even see the difference in very specific game terms between shooting, hitting, damaging and destroying I think this discussion is over.

Of course I can. You're the one who seems to be unable to see that "shoot" and "shoot at" aren't the same thing, as I pointed out. If you don't agree, look it up. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English and the Penguin English Dictionary both agree with me. I'm confident that others will, too. To shoot means to hit with a missile of some sort. To shoot at means to attempt to hit with a missile of some sort.

 

I pointed out how, in the sentence in question, shooting can refer to destroying (just like in the above mentioned dictionaries, shooting can refer to killing). I backed up my point with grammatical arguments. Of course I realise that shooting and destroying (let alone hitting and damaging) aren't by definition the same, and insinuating that I don't is a straw man argument.

[tahrikmili]

Well, since you've made a perfect case for shooting being the same thing as destroying I suppose we can thus deduct that any rule that refers to shooting will require destroying the target, right?

 

So now infantry can only assault units they destroyed.

 

Wait wat?

[Zacharijah]

Well, since you've made a perfect case for shooting being the same thing as destroying I suppose we can thus deduct that any rule that refers to shooting will require destroying the target, right?

 

So now infantry can only assault units they destroyed.

 

Wait wat?

Please read my post again:

 

I pointed out how, in the sentence in question, shooting can refer to destroying (just like in the above mentioned dictionaries, shooting can refer to killing).

 

Of course I realise that shooting and destroying (let alone hitting and damaging) aren't by definition the same

I really don't see the point in keeping up with childish straw man arguments.

 

Edit: Clarification

[tahrikmili]

I really don't see the point in keeping up with childish straw man arguments.

 

Edit: Clarification

 

Oh so it CAN but you never argued that it did until now, when it magically became convenient to do so?

 

Yeah, strawman arguments for sure.

[Zacharijah]

I really don't see the point in keeping up with childish straw man arguments.

 

Edit: Clarification

 

Oh so it CAN but you never argued that it did until now, when it magically became convenient to do so?

 

Yeah, strawman arguments for sure.

Are you referring to me saying that shooting can refer to destroying? I've been saying that throughout this thread. Surely, you don't need me to quote myself?

 

Can we please keep the debate constructive?

[ArmouredWing]

Heh heh heh, well, after reading a number of the posts here and having a good old chuckle I'll throw my twopeneth in.

 

For me it's as simple and clear cut as this;

 

1:When a unit fires on a vehicle and doesn't cause an emergency disembarkation they don't get to assault, they've shot at the vehicle and failed to do enough damage to cause anyone to get out.

 

2:When a unit fires on a vehicle and does cause a disembarkation they can seize the opportunity to follow up their ranged attack and get stuck in HtH.

 

Where '2' happens after '1'? To me makes no difference, to assault you've got to pop the target, period.

 

My gaming group may have a rather simplistic view on this but we all play te same and it works for us, after all, if you play it either way so will your opponent.

[Isiah]

Hey come on let's stop the petty personal stuff please... keep the discussion expansive and facts-driven.