Gaming Group's RAI

[Brother_Byhlli]

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.

 

Hahahaha! awfulawful, I apologise whole-heartedly for coming at you perhaps more strongly than was warranted -especially in the light of this post! I was replying as I made my way through the thread, rather than starting at the end to see what people had concluded. I'm sorry, my bad. I applaud you for your extremely gracious acceptance of your mistake and will say no more about it.

 

One further, last, minor detail which is entirely unrelated: I really like your name! Every time I type it, "awfulawful" makes me happy as a construct. Congratulations, sir!

 

:cuss

[Quixus]

I'm still not convinced. "if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a (indefinite article) ranged attack, the (definite article) unit (which one?) that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules."

According to wikipedia:

An indefinite article indicates that its noun is not a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker is mentioning for the first time, or its precise identity may be irrelevant or hypothetical, or the speaker may be making a general statement about any such thing.

So there is no grammatical connection between the shooting attack and the shooting unit later in the sentence.

 

And still to shoot=/=to destroy. There is no restriction either that this rule only applies if only one unit shoots at the transport. If only one unit shoots at the vehicle it is clear, since the unit must have destroyed the transport anyways. In case of more than one shooting unit the restriction is that the unit must have shot at the transport in the shooting phase. It is not required that the unit has destroyed it then.

 

So either any unit that shot the transport may assault its passengers or it is essentially a non-rule because the squad can't normally assault something other that its target of the shooting phase.

[Brother_Byhlli]

I'm still not convinced. "if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a (unspecific) ranged attack, the (specific) unit (which one?) that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules." And still to shoot=/=to destroy. There is no restriction either that this rule only applies if only one unit shoots at the transport. If only one unit shoots at the vehicle it is clear, since the unit must have destroyed the transport anyways. In case of more than one shooting units the restriction is that the unit must have shot at the transport in the shooting phase. It is not required that the unit has destroyed it then.

 

So either any unit that shot the transport may assault its passengers or it is essentially a non-rule because the squad can't normally assault something other that its target of the shooting phase.

 

You're wrong. I'm not discussing this any more.

 

:P

[DV8]

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.

 

I wouldn't worry about it buddy. :P

 

Although if I am fustrated, can I go all Wulfen-style on you? Lulz. Ooh wrong board. Black rage style?

 

 

DV8

[AustonT]

Actually I beg to differ without any intention to incite further debate on this subject. We play a game with "a fairly abstract set or rules"

The rules are carefully crafted but by no means omnipotent. The example you used was at one time addressed in the 4ed BRB, and that changed to streamline the game. The game itself has changed from a fairly ill defined ruleset that REQUIRED a great deal of interpretation to play, to a more strict and competitive format. I do use a logical interpretation of combat as do those I game with. That's why I prefer league play to open tourneys. Ah nostalgia