Gaming Group's RAI

[Brother_Byhlli]

Hey guys,

 

I have a couple of questions that have come up recently in games and I wanted your feedback on them:

 

• My Assault Squad found itself within charge range of two Imperial Guard units. I was pretty much guaranteed to wipe out either one with maybe two-thirds of my wounds being excessive on one and one-half being excessive on the other. I decided to multi-charge the two units. My opponent looked a little surprised and told me that I wasn't allowed to do that. His interpretation of the rules was that I could only engage a second unit once every unengaged model on the first unit was engaged. As I read the rules, this is absolute nonsense. My reading of the rules is that if my assault Squad has shot a unit, my first model - being the model closest to the target unit - has to charge the unit I shot at. However, any subsequent models, so long as they follow the rules for assaulting, can engage any enemy unit they want. The rules for assaulting, taken from the Big Rule Book, are as follows:
   
  
  1. ... each model must end its assault move in coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved.
     
  2. If possible, the model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model.
     
  3. If there are no such models in reach, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with an assaulting model.
     
  4. If a model cannot reach any enemy models, it must try to move within 2" of one of its own unit's models that is already in base contact with an enemy.
     
  5. If this is impossible, it must simply stay in coherency.
     

  Absolutely nowhere in that list of rules is anything said which precludes any of my models charging a second unit. Can anyone either confirm that I'm right or explain why I'm wrong? And, if I'm right, is there an easy way of settling this decisively? Do GW reply at all well to emails, for example? I play at my local GWS and we didn't get a definite answer from the blue-shirt we asked.

 

• It's accepted that a unit which has destroyed a transport in the shooting phase is allowed to assault the unit that was inside in the subsequent assault phase. However, there was a situation where we were unsure how the rules work:
   
  My Unit A shoots a transport but fails to destroy it. My Unit B shoots at the same transport and succeeds in destroying it, disembarking the troops inside. Can my Unit A then charge the disembarked troops? The BRB says "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". However, this isn't clear in a situation when multiple units have shot a transport.
  

I think that's me for now, so far as rules questions go.

 

Oh, a quickie, purely for my own peace of mind: can Terminators embark onto Stormraven Gunships? I assume so as I can't find anything that says otherwise, but I'm loathe to take a lack of contradiction for confirmation in absence of anything actually saying "yes".

 

Thanks in advance, brothers!

 

--BB

[AustonT]

In answer to your peace of mind question :yes.

In the wargear section under Terminator armor it speciefies TDA may not embark on RB or Rhinos, but makes no mention of Stormravens

[Brother_Byhlli]

In answer to your peace of mind question :yes.

In the wargear section under Terminator armor it speciefies TDA may not embark on RB or Rhinos, but makes no mention of Stormravens

 

Yup, that was my reading also. I just wasn't sure if there wasn't an extra comment written somewhere I hadn't seen disallowing it. Thanks for the confirmation!

[AbusePuppy]

You are allowed to assault multiple units- it even has a section in the rules on doing so (p.34). However, you are actually not quite correct- when moving to assault multiple enemy units, you do not have to engage every model in the "primary" target (the one you assaulted first and may or may not have shot at) before moving to assault the second. However, you DO have to maintain coherency of the models you have moved at all times, so it can be very important in which order you move the models.

 

With regards to your second question, unit A is out of luck. Having shot the now-destroyed transport (but failing to destroy it), they have no options for things they can legally charge. Annoying, but that's the way it goes.

[Brother_Byhlli]

You are allowed to assault multiple units- it even has a section in the rules on doing so (p.34). However, you are actually not quite correct- when moving to assault multiple enemy units, you do not have to engage every model in the "primary" target (the one you assaulted first and may or may not have shot at) before moving to assault the second. However, you DO have to maintain coherency of the models you have moved at all times, so it can be very important in which order you move the models.

 

With regards to your second question, unit A is out of luck. Having shot the now-destroyed transport (but failing to destroy it), they have no options for things they can legally charge. Annoying, but that's the way it goes.

 

Excellent, AbusePuppy, thanks for the responses. Both your replies confirm my own reading of the rules. Agree on all counts, 100%!

 

I'll have to make a mental note from now on that if I have the option of shooting a transport with two units, one of which has multiple options for assaults, I use that unit last!

[Quixus]

With regards to your second question, unit A is out of luck. Having shot the now-destroyed transport (but failing to destroy it), they have no options for things they can legally charge. Annoying, but that's the way it goes.

Actually I see it differently. It is "the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers" The unit must have shot, not necessarily destroyed, the vehicle to be allowed to assault the passengers. So another unit destroying a transport would not forbid the first unit from charging the passengers if it shot (at) the vehicle.

It makes sense too, since all shooting is supposed to happen at the same time.

 

RAS Sgt.: "Death to the foul blue Xenos! Charge!"

Meltagunner:"Sorry Brother-Sergeant, to my shame I must admit it wasn't me that destroyed the Devilfish. I only shot off its burst cannon. Ancient Tin Can struck the killing blow with his Lascannon!"

Sgt.:"Then we wait for the Xenos to come to us."

*Squad gets shot to pieces by the Fire Warriors.*

[Morollan]

Quixus, that's an interesting point and one I've not noticed before. The rules do indeed specify "shot" rather then "destroyed" so I think technically you are correct and it does even make a certain amount of sense.

[DV8]

Actually I see it differently. It is "the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers" The unit must have shot, not necessarily destroyed, the vehicle to be allowed to assault the passengers. So another unit destroying a transport would not forbid the first unit from charging the passengers if it shot (at) the vehicle.

It makes sense too, since all shooting is supposed to happen at the same time.

 

It's because you're taking clauses in the rule and acting upon them as separate instances (or rather, individual criteria to be met), when in fact the entire rule has to be taken into account (that is, every instance must be met in order for you to be allowed to act).

 

"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"

.

 

An important distinction to note is the use of the when referring to the unit. Not a unit (which would indicate that any unit that shot at the transport, even if it did not destroy the transport, may assault it's contents if - at some point during the shooting phase - the transport was destroyed). But Games Workshop uses the to indicate the unit that shot and destroyed the transport (those two clauses must go together).

 

 

DV8

[Morollan]

"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"

.

 

An important distinction to note is the use of the when referring to the unit. Not a unit (which would indicate that any unit that shot at the transport, even if it did not destroy the transport, may assault it's contents if - at some point during the shooting phase - the transport was destroyed). But Games Workshop uses the to indicate the unit that shot and destroyed the transport (those two clauses must go together).

 

 

DV8

 

That might be what they intend but it's not what they wrote. Two units fire at a transport. Unit A destroys a weapon, unit B explodes the vehicle. Is unit A the unit that shot the transport? Yes. Is unit B the unit that shot the transport? Yes. Both qualify under that test and the rules state that they can therefore assault the passengers.

 

It is badly written but I'm not 100% sure that it's not what they intended.

 

EDIT - To solve the issue, the rules need to be amended to either:

 

"if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that destoyed it may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules"

 

OR

 

"if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, any unit that shot it during that turn may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules"

[AustonT]

Now Lord Knows I am more likely than most to enter the minutia of the rules and fluff, but in the grand exploration of the rules in 40k comes the spirit of the game. You, me, and Snuffy the Space Marine are in a scrap with little blue people with plasma rifles. I don't want to die so I take cover and put my head into the dirt and hide. You decide you want to be a hero firing your standard infantry weapon at the little blue peoples big yellow brown vehicles, BUT TO NO AVAIL! Snuffy, twit that he is, is 40 meters behind us firing a lascanon from the shoulder as if he were hefting a bag of groceries and not the armament for our main battle tank. Snuffy fires at the blue peoples machine which grinds to a halt. Smug as hell and encumbered by his ridiculous and overpowered BFG Snuffy sits down to have a snack. You're still trying to die for the Imperium of man and although your weapon has had no effect your focus is on the little blue people streaming out of their wrecked vehicle. You get all pumped up drag out a bloody chainsaw with an oddly mounted handle and run at the little blue people you've been vainly shooting. I, on the other hand, am still cowering in the bushes with my head in the sand thinking about sausage rolls.

In summary: You may assault because your focus is on the vehicle, Snuffy may assault but he's too far away, I may not assault; I simply cannot be bothered.

This is the interpretation of shooting and assaulting as I see it.

[DV8]

Basic English, you use "the" as part of a noun phrase to indicate singularity, when all parties involved know the identity of the thing or idea already.

 

When Games Workshop specifically words it as the unit it is in reference to a particular single unit. They didn't use a unit or any unit for a reason. It is specifically worded as the unit with regards to a single unit; which unit? The one that shot and destroyed the transport.

 

This is why I said you have to include every clause listed in the rule as criteria to be met as a whole (the preceding statement "if the transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack").

 

Broken down this way:

 

If a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit (which unit? The one that destroyed it.) that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers.

 

 

DV8

[Quixus]

Unit A shoots the vehicle but fails to destroy it. Unit B shoots the vehicle as well and achieves a Wrecked or Wrecked - Explodes result.

Now the rule is that if the vehicle is destroyed by a shooting attack (and no mention who destroyed it), the unit that shot it may assault. There is no condition that only the unit that destroyed it may assault the passengers. Unless I'm mistaken, shooting is defined as selecting a valid (i.e. in range) target during the shooting phase and rolling the dice. The results of the rolls have no influence on the action being shooting or not.

So in my opinion there is a reason why the authors used to different verbs for the two parts of the sentence. To shoot=/=to destroy.

[JMac]

I'm sorry, but your argument is not as solid as DV8. His makes plain sense, while yours in on an assumption.

 

+1 for unit A not be able to charge.

[Morollan]

I'm sorry, but your argument is not as solid as DV8. His makes plain sense, while yours in on an assumption.

 

Actually, his is on an assumption too. He's assuming that GW meant to write the unit that destroyed the vehicle. Others are assuming they meant to write any unit that shot at the vehicle. Assumption A is no more valid than assumption B.

[DV8]

I'm sorry, but your argument is not as solid as DV8. His makes plain sense, while yours in on an assumption.

 

Actually, his is on an assumption too. He's assuming that GW meant to write the unit that destroyed the vehicle. Others are assuming they meant to write any unit that shot at the vehicle. Assumption A is no more valid than assumption B.

 

I beg to differ. My position is based on basic grammar and (I think) sentence structure, where-in various clauses are strung together in a sequence to present one requirement. The syntax of the rule means that my understanding of it needs no assumptions. It merely requires me to ask the basic questions of who, what, where, when or why and to look within the requirement for the necessary answers.

 

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.

 

Moving through that sentence, something has to happen first.

 

• What happens? The transport is destroyed.
  
• How? By a ranged attack.
  
• From who? The unit that shot at it (and subsequently destroyed it) (note the use of the, referring to a singular individual unit, which is reinforced by the fact that unit is not pluralized) Referring to my previous post, the identity of the unit is established by the preceding statement (part of the same sentence, one of the clauses to be fulfilled, part of one entire requirement) as the unit that destroyed the transport (how?) by a ranged attack.
  
• What is it launching an assault against? The occupants who were disembarked via the destruction of the transport.
  
• When? It launches it's assault in the following Assault phase.
  
• How? According to the Assault Rules.
  
• Why would it do such a thing? Because the Greater Good of the Imperium is best served with the destruction of the offending Xenos. Ko'vash Tau'va indeed.
  

 

Your position, on the other hand, requires assumptions based on intent of the authors, and an interpretation of "the unit" beyond the scope of the English language to automatically assume under its umbrella "any and all units to have shot at the transport, regardless of whether they destroyed it or not".

 

There are many ways the unit could be reworded to support (explicitly or implicitly) your argument:

 

the units

a unit

any unit

any units

 

But the wording is specific: the unit, a singular item whose identity is established by the preceding clause: the one to have destroyed the transport via a ranged attack.

 

 

DV8

[StJude]

I'm sorry, but your argument is not as solid as DV8. His makes plain sense, while yours in on an assumption.

 

Actually, his is on an assumption too. He's assuming that GW meant to write the unit that destroyed the vehicle. Others are assuming they meant to write any unit that shot at the vehicle. Assumption A is no more valid than assumption B.

 

I beg to differ. My position is based on basic grammar and (I think) sentence structure, where-in various clauses are strung together in a sequence to present one requirement. The syntax of the rule means that my understanding of it needs no assumptions. It merely requires me to ask the basic questions of who, what, where, when or why and to look within the requirement for the necessary answers.

 

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.

 

Moving through that sentence, something has to happen first.

 

• What happens? The transport is destroyed.
  
• How? By a ranged attack.
  
• From who? The unit that shot at it (note the use of the, referring to a singular individual unit, which is reinforced by the fact that unit is not pluralized) Referring to my previous post, the identity of the unit is established by the preceding statement (part of the same sentence, one of the clauses to be fulfilled, part of one entire requirement) as the unit that destroyed the transport (how?) by a ranged attack.
  
• What is it launching an assault against? The occupants who were disembarked via the destruction of the transport.
  
• When? It launches it's assault in the following Assault phase.
  
• How? According to the Assault Rules.
  

 

Your position, on the other hand, requires assumptions based on intent of the authors, and an interpretation of "the unit" beyond the scope of the English language to automatically assume under its umbrella "any and all units to have shot at the transport, regardless of whether they destroyed it or not".

 

There are many ways the unit could be reworded to support (explicitly or implicitly) your argument:

 

the units

a unit

any unit

any units

 

But the wording is specific: the unit, a singular item whose identity is established by the preceding clause: the one to have destroyed the transport via a ranged attack.

 

 

DV8

 

On a quick aside, very glad this discussion came up regarding multiple assaults. Had this issue come up in a tourney and I am sad to say we got it wrong during the game.

 

As to the question about shooting and assaults, DV8 makes the most compelling argument. I would have to agree with his interpretation. Regardless, I think the safest thing one can do, is shoot with the none assaulting unit first.

[awfulawful]

Please allow me to break DV8's argument using his own logic. "The" is, indeed, a singular identifier. By specifying that the unit that shot a transport may assault the passengers, the rule book makes it abundantly clear that only one unit may shoot at any given transport.

 

Does anyone see why that doesn't work?

 

DV8 is adding a clause "and destroyed" where one does not exist. The rules do not say anything about which unit destroyed the transport. The only qualification given is having shot at it.

[DV8]

Please allow me to break DV8's argument using his own logic. "The" is, indeed, a singular identifier. By specifying that the unit that shot a transport may assault the passengers, the rule book makes it abundantly clear that only one unit may shoot at any given transport.

 

Does anyone see why that doesn't work?

 

The only thing that doesn't work is your attempt to "break" my logic, because the rule in question is not the singular defining rule that outlines the guidelines for the Shooting phase (and therein target selection), nor is it the be-all-end-all rule that encompasses the entirety of the Assault phase.

 

The opening pages of the section in the BRB for the Shooting phase outlines what is and is not a valid target for shooting, laying out specific criteria. In a nutshell, if the target is an enemy unit in Line of Sight, you may declare it a target. You may then measure range (and if you are in range), may shoot your weapon. If you're out of range, your shot misses. Assuming your weapon can damage the target, you proceed to roll the necessary dice to Hit, to Wound, whatever.

 

That's it. Nowhere does the BRB state that only a single unit may shoot at any other enemy unit, nor that any single enemy unit is limited to being shot once. In fact, that kind of limitation only applies wherein a single unit may only shoot at one other enemy unit in any given turn, unless they have their own rules that supersede this (for example, Long Fangs and their Split Fire rule.

 

So for example, this means that if Unit A declares Enemy Unit B as a target, it cannot choose to also declare Enemy Unit C as a target as well, unless it has its own unique rule that allows it to do so.

 

Once one of your units has completed its shooting, you select another one of your units and repeat, going through the entire process of picking a target, checking line of sight, measuring range, etc. until all your units have shot, and/or there are no longer any valid targets left. And, of course, once a target has been destroyed, it is no longer a valid target for shooting.

 

The specific syntax of the unit in this one particular rule is in reference to an instance where a unit that shot and destroyed a transport, now wishes to assault the disembarked passengers. This rule doesn't dictate the Shooting rules at all with regards to targeting the transport. It is merely an additional rule that deals with what happens afterwards (specifically, launching an Assault).

 

Think of it as checks:

 

Unit A shoots at enemy transport X, but fails to destroy it. Per the BRB, its only valid target at this point for an assault is the transport itself (because it shot at it).

Unit B shoots at enemy transport X, destroying it. Per the BRB (and assuming no additional rules), its only valid target at this point for an assault is also the transport.

 

The BRB then adds an extra rule:

 

If the transport is destroyed, the unit that shot it (at the particular instance it was destroyed) may proceed to charge the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to do so per the Assault rules.

 

Thus Unit B has another valid target added on it's "may Assault" list: enemy unit Y (which was formerly inside transport X).

 

All your interpretation succeeds in doing is undermining itself with its own faulty logic.

 

Rules in the rulebook cannot contradict each other (even if they did, Games Workshop has had PLENTY of time re: years to amend the oversight). Per the Shooting rules, any enemy unit may be declared a target for Shooting, so long as it fulfills basic criteria. What this means is that I can, in sequence, fire my Units A, B, C, D and E all at a single Enemy Unit X, assuming each prior unit firing didn't completely destroy them.

 

Following your own logic, if this additional rule were meant to imply that only one unit may shoot at an enemy transport per turn, that would invalidate the entire target selection process outlined at the start of the Shooting Phase section. Thus either the rules written in one section of the BRB are entirely wrong, or your interpretation of a secondary rule is wrong. Between the two options, which do you think is the right one to choose?

 

Moving forward, my understanding of this particular secondary rule, following all the basic rules of the English language, breaks or contradicts none of the rules in the rulebook. The only time your interpretation of the singular clause the would make sense is if the sentence specifically referred to the target selection rules (which it doesn't).

 

So please, try and "break" harder. You will forgive my sardonic post, but I am pretty much at wits end y'all can continue to argue this when, with plain and simple English grammar, I've proved to you that your argument is faulty and flawed. In the however many years since the release of 5th Edition (when this rule became permanently in effect) until now, this is the first time I have EVER heard of this argument. Either the thousands of players (tournament or otherwise) I've encountered have a very poor grasp of the English language, or you're attempting to argue a point that just simply doesn't exist.

 

DV8 is adding a clause "and destroyed" where one does not exist. The rules do not say anything about which unit destroyed the transport. The only qualification given is having shot at it.

 

I haven't added a clause at all, because that clause is already there to begin with, in the first part of the sentence: If the transport is destroyed....

 

You have to treat the ENTIRE rule as one big clause or requirement, where within it are several sub-clauses or sub-requirements (whatever you want to call them) that must be fulfilled in order for the entire clause or requirement to be fulfilled.

 

 

DV8

[awfulawful]

Thanks very much for explaining the rules of shooting. What you still seem to be missing is why your argument that the must refer to a singular unit when the rules are clear that multiple units can fire at the same target.

 

The specific syntax of the unit in this one particular rule is in reference to an instance where a unit that shot and destroyed a transport, now wishes to assault the disembarked passengers. This rule doesn't dictate the Shooting rules at all with regards to targeting the transport. It is merely an additional rule that deals with what happens afterwards (specifically, launching an Assault).

 

You keep adding that "and destroyed' in there, but it is not in the actual rule which, quoted from your own post, reads as follows:

"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"

.

 

There is no requirement that the shooting unit must have been the unit that destroyed the transport. You are conjuring that up from nowhere.

 

I haven't added a clause at all, because that clause is already there to begin with, in the first part of the sentence: If the transport is destroyed....

 

Again, your own post, the requirement is that the transport be destroyed in the shooting phase, there is nothing stating that it must have been destroyed by that same unit.

[awfulawful]

DV8, you know what, even as I sit here staring at this one sentence in the rules, I am thinking you have it correct. I am mis-reading it. I think what I kept skipping over was the "by a ranged attack" piece. The use of "a" really jives well with the singularity of "the" unit doing the shooting.

 

You have made your point well sir. I hope my slow wittedness didn't frustrate you too much.

[Brother_Byhlli]

Actually I see it differently. It is "the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers" The unit must have shot, not necessarily destroyed, the vehicle to be allowed to assault the passengers. So another unit destroying a transport would not forbid the first unit from charging the passengers if it shot (at) the vehicle.

It makes sense too, since all shooting is supposed to happen at the same time.

 

It's because you're taking clauses in the rule and acting upon them as separate instances (or rather, individual criteria to be met), when in fact the entire rule has to be taken into account (that is, every instance must be met in order for you to be allowed to act).

 

"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"

.

 

An important distinction to note is the use of the when referring to the unit. Not a unit (which would indicate that any unit that shot at the transport, even if it did not destroy the transport, may assault it's contents if - at some point during the shooting phase - the transport was destroyed). But Games Workshop uses the to indicate the unit that shot and destroyed the transport (those two clauses must go together).

 

 

DV8

 

I haven't read the thread beyond this post yet, but this absolutely sums up my opinion. QED. There's no way you can possibly convince me this is not the correct reading of the rules without an FAQ. The rules are clear. They are specific. They are final.

[Brother_Byhlli]

"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"

.

 

An important distinction to note is the use of the when referring to the unit. Not a unit (which would indicate that any unit that shot at the transport, even if it did not destroy the transport, may assault it's contents if - at some point during the shooting phase - the transport was destroyed). But Games Workshop uses the to indicate the unit that shot and destroyed the transport (those two clauses must go together).

 

 

DV8

 

That might be what they intend but it's not what they wrote. Two units fire at a transport. Unit A destroys a weapon, unit B explodes the vehicle. Is unit A the unit that shot the transport? Yes. Is unit B the unit that shot the transport? Yes. Both qualify under that test and the rules state that they can therefore assault the passengers.

 

It is badly written but I'm not 100% sure that it's not what they intended.

 

EDIT - To solve the issue, the rules need to be amended to either:

 

"if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that destoyed it may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules"

 

OR

 

"if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, any unit that shot it during that turn may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules"

 

 

Your two re-written rules would clarify the position, undoubtedly. However, as the rule is written, you are incorrect in claiming that "it's not what they wrote". It's exactly what they wrote. You absolutely cannot take part of a sentence out of the context of the entire sentence and claim it means something that in fact it does not.

 

You claim the BRB reads "the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers." However, that is quite plainly not a sentence. There's obviously missing information. If you read the entire sentence, following what the BRB actually says rather than what you think it says, the rule reads "... if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers." This is entirely clear. If the vehicle "is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault..." This isn't difficult. It's entirely clear. There's no reason for further discussion.

[Brother_Byhlli]

Now Lord Knows I am more likely than most to enter the minutia of the rules and fluff, but in the grand exploration of the rules in 40k comes the spirit of the game. You, me, and Snuffy the Space Marine are in a scrap with little blue people with plasma rifles. I don't want to die so I take cover and put my head into the dirt and hide. You decide you want to be a hero firing your standard infantry weapon at the little blue peoples big yellow brown vehicles, BUT TO NO AVAIL! Snuffy, twit that he is, is 40 meters behind us firing a lascanon from the shoulder as if he were hefting a bag of groceries and not the armament for our main battle tank. Snuffy fires at the blue peoples machine which grinds to a halt. Smug as hell and encumbered by his ridiculous and overpowered BFG Snuffy sits down to have a snack. You're still trying to die for the Imperium of man and although your weapon has had no effect your focus is on the little blue people streaming out of their wrecked vehicle. You get all pumped up drag out a bloody chainsaw with an oddly mounted handle and run at the little blue people you've been vainly shooting. I, on the other hand, am still cowering in the bushes with my head in the sand thinking about sausage rolls.

In summary: You may assault because your focus is on the vehicle, Snuffy may assault but he's too far away, I may not assault; I simply cannot be bothered.

This is the interpretation of shooting and assaulting as I see it.

 

I laud you sir, for your approach to explanation of rules.

 

Unfortunately, this isn't how the game works. We play a game based entirely, utterly and absolutely on a ruleset, rather than on what we think makes sense on the battlefield. You want an example? Within exactly the same setting, if you shoot a transport and cause a Crew Shaken or Crew Stunned result, you're left with passengers who got knocked about a bit and can't fire from the vehicle next turn. However, if you get a Destroyed - wrecked or a Destroyed - explodes! result, you're left with a unit that has free license to move, shoot, run, fire, go to ground, whatever. I'm not convinced that sitting in a Land Raider while it suddenly explodes around you is the equivalent to being hit by a somewhat bulky Imperial Guardsman.

 

The rules are very carefully designed for a reason. Whether you agree with them or no is irrelevant (see northernocean's decision to ignore the fact that Death Company Dreadnoughts do not count as scoring). If you can read and you have read the rules, the ruling is entirely clear. There's no room for discussion. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether you think it would be better played a different way or not, we play with a rule set. Follow it.

 

Basic English, you use "the" as part of a noun phrase to indicate singularity, when all parties involved know the identity of the thing or idea already.

 

When Games Workshop specifically words it as the unit it is in reference to a particular single unit. They didn't use a unit or any unit for a reason. It is specifically worded as the unit with regards to a single unit; which unit? The one that shot and destroyed the transport.

 

This is why I said you have to include every clause listed in the rule as criteria to be met as a whole (the preceding statement "if the transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack").

 

Broken down this way:

 

If a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit (which unit? The one that destroyed it.) that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers.

 

 

DV8

 

I'd parse the sentence slightly differently, but the point stands. This is correct. Why are there posts beyond this one?

 

Unit A shoots the vehicle but fails to destroy it. Unit B shoots the vehicle as well and achieves a Wrecked or Wrecked - Explodes result.

Now the rule is that if the vehicle is destroyed by a shooting attack (and no mention who destroyed it), the unit that shot it may assault. There is no condition that only the unit that destroyed it may assault the passengers. Unless I'm mistaken, shooting is defined as selecting a valid (i.e. in range) target during the shooting phase and rolling the dice. The results of the rolls have no influence on the action being shooting or not.

So in my opinion there is a reason why the authors used to different verbs for the two parts of the sentence. To shoot=/=to destroy.

 

Wrong. See DV8's posts as to why.

 

I'm sorry, but your argument is not as solid as DV8. His makes plain sense, while yours in on an assumption.

 

+1 for unit A not be able to charge.

 

+1 for JMac's +1.

 

I'm sorry, but your argument is not as solid as DV8. His makes plain sense, while yours in on an assumption.

 

Actually, his is on an assumption too. He's assuming that GW meant to write the unit that destroyed the vehicle. Others are assuming they meant to write any unit that shot at the vehicle. Assumption A is no more valid than assumption B.

 

Wrong. DV8 isn't assuming anything. He's reading the rule and applying the rules of English to what's been set down. It's clear. It's plain. What more do you need?

 

I'm sorry, but your argument is not as solid as DV8. His makes plain sense, while yours in on an assumption.

 

Actually, his is on an assumption too. He's assuming that GW meant to write the unit that destroyed the vehicle. Others are assuming they meant to write any unit that shot at the vehicle. Assumption A is no more valid than assumption B.

 

I beg to differ. My position is based on basic grammar and (I think) sentence structure, where-in various clauses are strung together in a sequence to present one requirement. The syntax of the rule means that my understanding of it needs no assumptions. It merely requires me to ask the basic questions of who, what, where, when or why and to look within the requirement for the necessary answers.

 

Heh. See?

 

Regardless, I think the safest thing one can do, is shoot with the none assaulting unit first.

 

This. I made the same point earlier.

 

Please allow me to break DV8's argument using his own logic. "The" is, indeed, a singular identifier. By specifying that the unit that shot a transport may assault the passengers, the rule book makes it abundantly clear that only one unit may shoot at any given transport.

 

Does anyone see why that doesn't work?

 

DV8 is adding a clause "and destroyed" where one does not exist. The rules do not say anything about which unit destroyed the transport. The only qualification given is having shot at it.

 

Please, never, ever try working in law. Your understanding of English and logic are fundamentally flawed.

[awfulawful]

by a ranged attack

 

That's exactly what I was missing.

 

 

This isn't difficult.

 

Apparently it was for me. :cuss

 

Please, never, ever try working in law. Your understanding of English and logic are fundamentally flawed.

 

I get it, I was wrong. Do I really have to quit my job now too?

[Brother_Byhlli]

by a ranged attack

 

That's exactly what I was missing.

 

 

This isn't difficult.

 

Apparently it was for me. :D

 

Annnnnnnnnd, I'm going to delete that post I was about to write up!

 

:cuss

 

Sorry, Brother, if I got heated. I'm known for it amongst family and friends. I get frustrated very easily when others disagree with me on the interpretation of language.

 

I understand exactly how you can miss a detail or how a sudden point of inspiration can suddenly open up new interpretations of something you've read what seems like hundreds of times. Hopefully you can go spread the word to the masses!

 

;)

 

--BB

 

by a ranged attack

 

That's exactly what I was missing.

 

 

This isn't difficult.

 

Apparently it was for me. :(

 

Please, never, ever try working in law. Your understanding of English and logic are fundamentally flawed.

 

I get it, I was wrong. Do I really have to quit my job now too?

 

*Hugs!*

 

Sorry, Brother! See my previous post for an extra apology. If it helps, I can supply cinnamon sprinkles on top? :cuss