Here is the situation and I was curious about what can happen

My IG are riding in a Chimera and it gets shot by a squad of SM w/melta. The melta only stunned the vehicle. Then a Land Raider shoots at it and fails to hurt it, followed by a predator that fails to do anything, then finally a Land Speeder destroys it and my guard are forced to disembark. My question is this: If the SM's shot at the vehicle and failed to destroy it can they still charge the squad that disembarked??

The space marines cannot charge the new unit.

No, the Space marines would have had to Destroy the Chimera themselves.

Gwar! wrote:No, the Space marines would have had to Destroy the Chimera themselves.

This is what I thought but can you back it up with rules quotes, when I read it the rule seemed vague.

broxus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, the Space marines would have had to Destroy the Chimera themselves.

This is what I thought but can you back it up with rules quotes, when I read it the rule seemed vague.

Gwar! wrote:

broxus wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, the Space marines would have had to Destroy the Chimera themselves.

This is what I thought but can you back it up with rules quotes, when I read it the rule seemed vague.

Page 67 wrote:Note: remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with its lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, 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.

See how it doesn't say "Any unit that shot at it", but rather "The Unit that Shot it". This means only the unit that destroyed the transport may assault the disembarked unit.

Yes, it is a debated point.

I think the rules tend towards the SM not being able to.
I think the intent tends towards the SM being able to.

But both of those are opinions.

Within the context of the sentence (about it being destroyed) the use of the words 'the unit' can only refer to the unit that caused this condition to come about.

In context, actually, you have to consider both sentences as they are part of the same idea. And in that context "the unit that shot at it" could equally refer to the unit in the previous sentence, that is a unit which fires at a transport with or without destroying it. If it said "the unit that fired the destroying shot" or equivalent it would be unambiguous, but in the context of the paragraph it is not.

liquiddark wrote:In context, actually, you have to consider both sentences as they are part of the same idea. And in that context "the unit that shot at it" could equally refer to the unit in the previous sentence, that is a unit which fires at a transport with or without destroying it. If it said "the unit that fired the destroying shot" or equivalent it would be unambiguous, but in the context of the paragraph it is not.

Don't forget the rules deal with ONE unit firing. Each Time the unit changes you go back to the start of the rules. It is pretty clear that "the unit that shot it" refers to the unit that caused the transport (it) to assplode.

The rules don't do any such thing. These actions take place in entirely separate phases of the battle - shooting during the shooting phase and assault during the assault phase. You can't apply the rules across that boundary without taking into account all of the actions of all of the units involved, otherwise it'd be choose unit->move unit->shoot with unit->assault with unit, rinse, wash, repeat for each unit on the board.

I'm leaning towards thinking the unit can assault if they fired at the vehicle target. The rules do say "the unit that shot at it" and not "the unit that destroyed it".

Yes, the Unit that shot at it. Not any unit who shot at it. The unit who shot at it (and caused to be destroyed) may charge the occupants.

Gwar! wrote:The unit who shot at it (and caused to be destroyed) may charge the occupants.

You're arguing based on a clarification that does not exist in the source rules. The text is, in a straight English Grammar sense, ambiguous.

liquiddark wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The unit who shot at it (and caused to be destroyed) may charge the occupants.

You're arguing based on a clarification that does not exist in the source rules. The text is, in a straight English Grammar sense, ambiguous.

When you look at it in isolation. Looking at it in context makes it clear.

I tend to think they may not asault the passengers if they didn't cause the destroyed result. The rule could have been a bit more clear, but I think Gwar's point re: the rule talking about one unit is valid in this case.

Certianly the shooting and assault phases take place at different times in the turn, but I think the writers were addressing the possible actions of one unit (the one that destroyed the vehicle). There is room for debate though and I can see the other pov being a possible intent.

You know, I think I'm coming to agree with you. The key phrase is "by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it" - "it" refers to the ranged attack, not the transport. I think it's a bit of a silly rule to disallow assaults to exactly the same place based on whether your particular weapon blew up a transport, but I think RAW does support your interpretation.

Also note that the phrase "the unit" is singular. It's only referring to one unit.

It should be faq'ed. It is still somewhat ambiguous in the wording.

Hardly suprising though...

"Note: remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with its lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, 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."

Nitpicky English time-in that sentence, "the unit that shot it etc." is a subordinate phrase which refers back to "However, if a transport is destroyed etc.". "The unit" therefor refers back to the act of destroying the transport.

In other words, I think He-who-must-not-be-named-lest-he-steal-your-soul-and-put-it-in-his-sig right. Technically. Leaving aside arguments about RAI-'cause I don't do ESP- I thinks it's a bad rule. But there it is.

How about if the Transport fills another force slot, say a
Land Raider Crusader which for some armies is a Heavy
Support Choice. If you put a unit inside does it count
as two units since the Transport was not a unit upgrade?

This way its treated as two units not allowing the
shooting unit to assault the second unit?

Or when you put a troop unit inside the heavy support
unit does it "become" one unit?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/250105.page

As for the other bit, they remain 2 units. One is in the transport (which is the other one).

What? The slot it takes doesn't make any difference. Even if it takes one slot, they are still 2 separate units. Even Dedicated transports.

You shoot a LRC with a Tactical Squad inside and Blow up the LRC, you can assault the Tactical Squad.
You shoot a Rhino with a Tactical Squad inside and Blow up the LRC, you can assault the Tactical Squad.
You shoot a Stompa with a Carnifex inside and Blow up the Stompa, you can assault the Carnifex.

It was just a thought. The worst question to ask is the
one not asked. Thanks for clearing it up for me, I
figured as much but have been told many differnet things.

Two points:

Point one: My soul dies a little inside as I say that Gwar is right. The RAW say that only the unit that destroyed the vehicle can assault.

Point two: That's damn silly. While the rules support it, common sense doesn't. What, my bloodthirsty Spacepsychos are going to hold back because the other guys 'called it first?' That's bollocks.

So...regimented play, I am going to play it RAW: the Space Marines in question are SOL and can wait their turn. Friendly games, I am going to allow my opponents Marines to charge forth and mow down my disoriented IG.

jimsolo wrote:My soul dies a little inside as I say that Gwar is right.

This is so sigged it's not even funny

As the rule just says the firing unit may assault "disembarked passengers", it doesn't matter who the passengers are or what FOC slot they came from, just that they were riding in the vehicle.

As bad as some of the wording is in 5th edition , I find it gets a lot worse as you go back into previous editions. I just wish they were faster about errata/faqing and would update based on logical arguments either sent in by email or argued on a forum they choose. Maybe each race gets to vote for one thing that matters to their race that they would like clarified and would be added to the faq/errata once per month(or once per 3) or something.

Halsfield wrote:As bad as some of the wording is in 5th edition , I find it gets a lot worse as you go back into previous editions. I just wish they were faster about errata/faqing and would update based on logical arguments either sent in by email or argued on a forum they choose. Maybe each race gets to vote for one thing that matters to their race that they would like clarified and would be added to the faq/errata once per month(or once per 3) or something.

That sounds way too much like work for the GW all-star web team.

unistoo wrote:

Halsfield wrote:As bad as some of the wording is in 5th edition , I find it gets a lot worse as you go back into previous editions. I just wish they were faster about errata/faqing and would update based on logical arguments either sent in by email or argued on a forum they choose. Maybe each race gets to vote for one thing that matters to their race that they would like clarified and would be added to the faq/errata once per month(or once per 3) or something.

That sounds way too much like work for the GW all-star web team.

Given I could do it in 4 weeks with a Sharpie and some coffee, I agree.

Page 67 wrote:
Note: remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with its lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, 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.

The context of this note is that only a single unit is acting against a vehicle. It is taking the rule out of context to assume that if multiple units fire at the vehicle only the unit that got the destroyed result may assault.

This would be like saying if I fired at a unit and didn't score a wound I couldn't assault. While we know this isn't true by the rules a better assumption would be to say that if any unit that shot at the vehicle would be able to assault the unit if the vehicle was destroyed. This should be a RAI clarification in the FAQ

sbeasley wrote:

Page 67 wrote:
Note: remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with its lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, 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.

The context of this note is that only a single unit is acting against a vehicle. It is taking the rule out of context to assume that if multiple units fire at the vehicle only the unit that got the destroyed result may assault.

This would be like saying if I fired at a unit and didn't score a wound I couldn't assault. While we know this isn't true by the rules a better assumption would be to say that if any vehicle that shot at the vehicle would be able to assault the unit if the vehicle was destroyed. This should be a RAI clarification in the FAQ

If it had been, I would agree.
Since the FAQ for the main rules has been out for a while, and does not include this; it seems that the RAW is what was intended.

Just because the FAQ has been out for a while, doesn't mean that it was intended to be that way, because it might be that it wasn't thought of before.

The context of these sentences is only from a single unit perspective, and is very clear what happens if a single unit shoots. The problem is that because you want to apply multiple shooters you then deny the assault of one unit because it didn't get a destroyed result, which makes no logical sense, and actually makes the rules more complicated than they need to be.

This makes sense
If unit(s) shoot at a vehicle and the vehicle is destroyed then the unit(s) may assault the embarked unit.

Or

This does not make sense
If unit(s) shoot at a vehicle and the vehicle is destroyed only the unit that got the destroyed result may assault the embarked unit.

It is like a previous poster said. Oh since you destroyed it, why don't you assault, and I'll just hang back here and watch. This is a tactical game, and is supposed to be logical. It logically makes sense that they should both be able to assault. The rule is vague in respect to multiple units, and thus should be added to the errata to what makes logical sense. Both units can assault.

This probably isn't a game breaker, and it probably actually doesn't even come up very often honestly, but still it should be consistent with the rest of the rules.

So your whole argument is "I don't like how the game is so I'm gonna change it."

Think about it like this, Squad A is shooting at the tank and does nothing, then all of a sudden Squad B Fires and it explodes. Squad A was not ready for it to explode and not ready to charge the occupants.

Logical sense. . .

Logically, I would think that following the text written would cause less issues than infering intent.

The rule makes perfect sense to me as written.

There are a fair number of things that the game rules have working differently than many assume they would "in real life". Throwing those out because you assume that the intent was realism makes as much sense as thinking that the writers wrote the rules they intended.

Gwar! wrote:So your whole argument is "I don't like how the game is so I'm gonna change it."

No that is not my argument

Gwar! wrote:
Think about it like this, Squad A is shooting at the tank and does nothing, then all of a sudden Squad B Fires and it explodes. Squad A was not ready for it to explode and not ready to charge the occupants.

This would make sense if shooting happened at different times, but shooting supposedly happens all simultaneously. So both unit A and unit B are shooting at the same time. How would they know if there shots blew it up or not. They wouldn't.

The rule states

However, 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.

It doesn't say by the units ranged attack is says a ranged attack, so regardless of what unit blew it up. Any unit that shot and is able to assault the disembarked unit would be able to assault.

sbeasley wrote:The rule states

However, 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.

It doesn't say by the units ranged attack is says a ranged attack, so regardless of what unit blew it up. Any unit that shot and is able to assault the disembarked unit would be able to assault.

My empasis, your quote.

Unfortunate about the wording in it though.

kirsanth wrote:

sbeasley wrote:The rule states

However, 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.

It doesn't say by the units ranged attack is says a ranged attack, so regardless of what unit blew it up. Any unit that shot and is able to assault the disembarked unit would be able to assault.

My empasis, your quote.

Unfortunate about the wording in it though.

Thank you.

In other news: sbeasley tries to change rules because he doesn't like them. More at 11.

Oooh. . . Tough Tyrant Guard!

kirsanth wrote:

sbeasley wrote:The rule states

However, 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.

It doesn't say by the units ranged attack is says a ranged attack, so regardless of what unit blew it up. Any unit that shot and is able to assault the disembarked unit would be able to assault.

My empasis, your quote.

Unfortunate about the wording in it though.

It isn't unfortunate in the least. This whole context is from the perspective of a single unit firing at a vehicle. It doesn't take into account multiple units firing at the same vehicle. The context is singular. The context of multiple units firing at the same vehicle is not explicitly covered in this rules context, but isn't explicitly denied.

Unit A fires and does not destroy
Unit B fires and does destroy.

Unit B obviously can assault.

Unit A
Was the vehicle destroyed by a ranged attack: Yes
Was the vehicle shot at by the unit: Yes
Can the unit assault the now disembarked unit: Yes

Because the first two conditions were met.

sbeasley wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

sbeasley wrote:The rule states

However, 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.

It doesn't say by the units ranged attack is says a ranged attack, so regardless of what unit blew it up. Any unit that shot and is able to assault the disembarked unit would be able to assault.

My empasis, your quote.

Unfortunate about the wording in it though.

It isn't unfortunate in the least. This whole context is from the perspective of a single unit firing at a vehicle. It doesn't take into account multiple units firing at the same vehicle. The context is singular. The context of multiple units firing at the same vehicle is not explicitly covered in this rules context, but isn't explicitly denied.

Unit A fires and does not destroy
Unit B fires and does destroy.

Unit B obviously can assault.

Unit A
Was the vehicle destroyed by a ranged attack: Yes
Was the vehicle shot at by the unit: Yes
Can the unit assault the now disembarked unit: Yes

Because the first two conditions were met.

No, how about taking it in context. The unit that shot at it (and via the context, destoyed it) may assault the passengers.

Not any other unit who happened to shoot at the tank. Again, not the Singular "THE unit that shot it", not any unit.

Not to come across as rude or anything, but you are utterly, 100% and without a doubt incorrect.

In other news: sbeasley tries to change rules because he doesn't like them. More at 11.

In other words you can't make a logical argument, so you fling mud.

You do realize that the lack of plural in the sentence does not prove your point?

Inference = RAI

The actual text is RAW.

House Rule all you like, but realize you are doing it.

See: Leaping. (sigh)

sbeasley wrote:In other words you can't make a logical argument, so you fling mud.

I have yet to see a "logical" argument from you. I have seen a "I don't think it can work this way", "it wouldn't be like this In Real life" and a "I'll just ignore half the rule" arguments, but not a "Logical" one.

I see now where the confusion is. You take it to refer as the unit that shot

Where I was taking it to mean the vehicle.

I agree with you if,
However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it (ranged attack) may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules.

I read the rule as
However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it (vehicle) may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/250105.page

This has (still) been done before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The unit.

Not "the units" Not "any unit" or any other word that could lead one to believe a plural was refered to.

sbeasley wrote:I read the rule as
However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it (vehicle) may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules.

What? That reading means that the vehicle that was destroyed may now assault the passengers...

It. Is. VERY. Simple. When a Transport is destroyed, THE UNIT that shot the vehicle (and thus Destroyed it) may charge the disembarked passengers.

But yet the 'However' part of the rules which would trigger your ability to charge with any unit that shot the vehicle only triggers in the case that the vehicle is destroyed, and in that case it references the specific singular unit that did the destroying.

All of the units who just fired at the vehicle are perfectly allowed to assault the vehicle - but the rule to allow them to charge the passengers never triggers for them.

You can use either ranged attack *or* vehicle in place of the 'it' but that still fails to connect the 'however' to multiple units because not only is this sentence specifically about a singular unit - the previous sentence it is connected to (via the English language rules for 'However') is about a singular unit.

Edit: *sigh* I should have used my 100th post for something useful, like proclaiming a love for Dark Elf boobies...they are wonderful.

But you did!

No worries.

Gwar! wrote:

sbeasley wrote:In other words you can't make a logical argument, so you fling mud.

I have yet to see a "logical" argument from you. I have seen a "I don't think it can work this way", "it wouldn't be like this In Real life" and a "I'll just ignore half the rule" arguments, but not a "Logical" one.

I suppose
Unit A
Was the vehicle destroyed by a ranged attack: Yes
Was the vehicle shot at by the unit: Yes
Can the unit assault the now disembarked unit: Yes

Wasn't logical enough for you, but hey we can't please everyone.

kirsanth wrote:
The unit.

Not "the units" Not "any unit" or any other word that could lead one to believe a plural was refered to.

I'm not arguing what the unit means

Gwar! wrote:

sbeasley wrote:I read the rule as
However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it (vehicle) may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules.

What? That reading means that the vehicle that was destroyed may now assault the passengers...

No that is not what it means the unit that shot the vehicle may assault the disembarked passengers. It makes perfect sense.

Thor665 wrote:But yet the 'However' part of the rules which would trigger your ability to charge with any unit that shot the vehicle only triggers in the case that the vehicle is destroyed, and in that case it references the specific singular unit that did the destroying.

All of the units who just fired at the vehicle are perfectly allowed to assault the vehicle - but the rule to allow them to charge the passengers never triggers for them.

You can use either ranged attack *or* vehicle in place of the 'it' but that still fails to connect the 'however' to multiple units because not only is this sentence specifically about a singular unit - the previous sentence it is connected to (via the English language rules for 'However') is about a singular unit.

Sigh. How many times do I have to say that the context of this rule is singular in nature. This rule is specific to what happens when ONE unit shoots at ONE Vehicle. It isn't specific as to what happens when MULTIPLE units shoot at ONE Vehicle and is thus up for interpretation.

If "it" was in fact referring to the ranged attack that just took place, then I see your point of view, but if "it" refers to "the vehicle" then the unit that shot the vehicle weather it destroyed it or not is not relevant. Hey both units shot it, and thus meet the condition.

Gwar! wrote:It. Is. VERY. Simple. When a Transport is destroyed, THE UNIT that shot the vehicle (and thus Destroyed it) may charge the disembarked passengers.

It isn't as simple as you make it out to be. It doesn't say "and thuse destroyed it" you are putting that in there yourself to change the rules yourself.

I repeat
Unit A shoots at the transport and does not destroy it.
Unit B shoots at the transport and destroys it.

The rule is this.

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

Unit A
Was the vehicle destroyed by a ranged attack: Yes by Unit B (if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack)
Was the vehicle shot at by the unit: Yes (the unit that shot it (the vehicle) may assault the now disembarked passengers)

I do not understand how this by itself doesn't meet the condition of the rule in all honesty.

Both parts of the sentence have been satisfied.

And lastly this rule only benefits me if I see it from your point of view. I run Mech Eldar. Do you think I want multiple units assaulting my troops in my wave serpents. NO. Do I feel that the intent of the rule was to allow multiple assaults. Absolutely.

I love it that you think I want to change the rules to my benefit when you don't even know what I play. I have done nothing but give a logical interpretation of the rule. I even stated I possibly could see it from your point of view if by "it" was referring to the ranged attack that just occurred, but if it referred to the transport then I stood by my argument. While all I get from you is, "I'm 100% right"

And I never said this was RAW I from the beginning was coming from a RAI thought. This is not the RAW forum. It is You make the call

If this is a RAW forum then all Eldar Jetbikes move 6" in THE ASSAULT PHASE. If it is your assault phase then I'm moving 6" have fun trying to assault me now SUCKER!!!

Obviously that isn't the case, and anyone saying differently would be laughed off the forums.

1) You are adding parts to rules now.
2) This IS the RaW forum.
3) RaW you cannot use Eldar jet Bikes in your opponents turn for the same reason orders cannot be giver nor can Carnifexes fire in your opponents turn. That is, you cannot do anything in your opponents turn without explicit permission.
4) You are taking the rule out of context and twisting to suit your needs.
5) Compare Post counts, then look through my signatures. I currently have 64 going through a cycle, and countless others that have not been sig friendly.

sbeasley wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
The unit.

Not "the units" Not "any unit" or any other word that could lead one to believe a plural was refered to.

I'm not arguing what the unit means

Ok, then why are you arguing that any unit that shot at the transport can assault the transport's occupants? Since it says "the unit that shot".

It really is that simple.

shrug

Gwar! wrote:1) You are adding parts to rules now.

Only to emphasis how I'm interpreting the rule, so that you may have a clearer understanding of where I'm coming from.

Gwar! wrote:2) This IS the RaW forum.

Really so all the RAI parts of the INATFAQv2.2.pdf I should ignore because it is posted here in the RaW forum. Please. It is both.

Gwar! wrote:3) RaW you cannot use Eldar jet Bikes in your opponents turn for the same reason orders cannot be giver nor can Carnifexes fire in your opponents turn. That is, you cannot do anything in your opponents turn without explicit permission.

I wasn't being serious. I was pointing out the ridiculous nature of RAW arguments can be sometimes.

Gwar! wrote:4) You are taking the rule out of context and twisting to suit your needs.

I've said it before. It doesn't benefit me at all to interpret it the way I have. It benefits assault armies, which mine is not. And if you in case were referring to the Eldar Jetbike statement. Seriously if you couldn't tell that was sarcasm I don't know how to help you. Geez.

Gwar! wrote:5) Compare Post counts, then look through my signatures. I currently have 64 going through a cycle, and countless others that have not been sig friendly.

Comparing now. You have more. How did I do? <-- More sarcasm just in case you didn't catch it.
I realize that you have been around these boards longer than I have, and that you have a lot of input, and most of it I even agree with. What I don't understand in your insistence that you are 100% right. Do you have that much of a grasp of the English language, and insight a.k.a, mind reading, that you knew what the designers meant when writing the rule. Seriously. At least be a little humble and say 99%

This has gotten off topic. I've stated how I interpret the rule, and I've talked with those I've normally gamed with and we will play our way. If it comes up in tournament play then the judge will decide how it is interpreted at that point.

This isn't as clear as you and others want to make it out to be. I have satisfied the condition within the rules, and so have you. So it is up to interpretation. I can see your side, but you obviously can't see mine. Hopefully you maybe more open minded in the future.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

sbeasley wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
The unit.

Not "the units" Not "any unit" or any other word that could lead one to believe a plural was refered to.

I'm not arguing what the unit means

Ok, then why are you arguing that any unit that shot at the transport can assault the transport's occupants? Since it says "the unit that shot".

It really is that simple.

shrug

Because I'm saying that both units are the unit that shot

Are you saying that Unit A didn't shoot the transport?

The main problem is how you interpret the rule is incorrect, not only from my view, but pretty much EVERYONE ELSE who has posted.

But hey, don't let that stop you or anything.

No, unit A shot the transport, but please, READ THE FULL RULE. In the context of the rule, it is VERY clear that "THE (<<< SINGULAR) Unit" refers only to the one that destroyed the transport. Nothing else. To read it any other way shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of the English language.

sbeasley wrote:It isn't unfortunate in the least. This whole context is from the perspective of a single unit firing at a vehicle. It doesn't take into account multiple units firing at the same vehicle.

...and therefore doesn't apply to multiple units firing at the vehicle.

Just the one that destroys it.


RAW, any other units can't assault, because the rule refers to 'the' unit. Singular.
RAI is, as is usually the case, anybody's guess. But in a game system that confines units that shot to assaulting only the unit at which they shot, a rule that grants a specific exception in a given situation seems more likely to have been intended to apply only to that one unit, not to everybody else.

So as far as I can see, both RAW and RA(Probably)I are against you.

sbeasley wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

sbeasley wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
The unit.

Not "the units" Not "any unit" or any other word that could lead one to believe a plural was refered to.

I'm not arguing what the unit means

Ok, then why are you arguing that any unit that shot at the transport can assault the transport's occupants? Since it says "the unit that shot".

It really is that simple.

shrug

Because I'm saying that both units are the unit that shot

Are you saying that Unit A didn't shoot the transport?

So you are arguing about what "the unit" means. . . since you think "the unit" means "the units".

sbeasley wrote:Because I'm saying that both units are the unit that shot

Are you saying that Unit A didn't shoot the transport?

Both units are units that shot.

Only the unit that destroyed the transport is 'the unit that shot it' within the context of the rule as written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sbeasley wrote:

Gwar! wrote:2) This IS the RaW forum.

Really so all the RAI parts of the INATFAQv2.2.pdf I should ignore because it is posted here in the RaW forum. Please. It is both.

Without trying to be nasty, it amazes me that so many new users feel the need to argue with the regulars as to what YMDC is for. It seems the equivalent of walking into someone's loungroom and demanding that they move their bed in there, as there's nothing that says that the lounge room is only for armchairs...


For what it's worth, YMDC is a forum for discussing the rules. While we'll sometimes (most usually in threads specifically asking for it) discuss how we actually play the game, most of the time we're talking about the actual rules. That means RAW, since it's generally impossible to determine RAI with any guarantee of accuracy.

So mentioning that you prefer to play a given way is fine. Claiming that your RA(you perceive them to be)I interpretation is clearly the correct one generally doesn't go down so well, though.

It seems fairly obvious to me that Gwar is right.

If not then you would have people trying all sorts of things, a Close-combat squad sat within assault range of a vehicle firing weapons that won't ever damage it just in case another unit blows it up, because now they can assault and carve up the occupants, Hell, that one just came to me, i'm sure other people would find even more ingenious ways round it.

I think the way it is written needs some clarification because otherwise this point wouldn't have been bought up at all, however, i think it is obvious what was intended. I understand you saying "but it says the unit that shot may assault, not the unit that destroyed", but at the same time it doesn't say "any unit that fired at the vehicle may now assault". It is talking about THE unit, which in the context of these rules happens to be the unit that DID destroy said vehicle.

Gwar! wrote:The main problem is how you interpret the rule is incorrect, not only from my view, but pretty much EVERYONE ELSE who has posted.

But hey, don't let that stop you or anything.

No, unit A shot the transport, but please, READ THE FULL RULE. In the context of the rule, it is VERY clear that "THE (<<< SINGULAR) Unit" refers only to the one that destroyed the transport. Nothing else. To read it any other way shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of the English language.

You are right there are about 5 supporting your position and 1 supporting my position with 1 on the fence. Hardly a consensus of the entire 40K player base. I'm sure someone can use this in some study. Study's show that ...

Fundamental lack of the English language

Wow, I realize that it has been a while since I've taken and English grammar class, but if I'm not interpreting my native language correctly, it wouldn't be fundamental it would be on the level of lawyering the meaning of grammatical structure. Not quite fundamental. Also I'm not from the UK, and we all know that British English has several differences from American English.

I would say that reading the rule quickly it definitely gives the impression that only the unit that destroyed the transport may assault the disembarked unit.

But what I have argued from the beginning is that it may not be what they entirely intended. They may have not considered what happens in this case. Again a RAI interpretation I know. One that does not benefit me either, but it is how I would interpret the rule if the condition arose.

I write software for a living. If this was one of the business rules that I received I would send it back for not being explicit, but we cannot do that as GW doesn't FAQ things very quickly to resolve these issues. I can tell you now that the way it is worded in the rules is almost never what was intended in the fine details. Especially when being interpreted by a 3rd party, who took no part in the original design. That being neither of us.

How about this if it is RAW you win, the quick and dirty letter of the law it definitely leans to one assault. But seriously look at how shooting and assault works. The rule is so that you can't shoot one unit and assault a completely different unit in a different direction. This is an exception to that rule, because a transport and the unit that just disembarked are effectively the same unit even if not defined that way in game terms. So they wrote the exception not taking into consideration about multiple units firing at the same unit. What happens in that case? The rule doesn't explicitly state what should happen. You can only infer what happens because what happens in a singular case. Maybe it isn't handled that way because only in the assault phase does it ever handle multiple units acting on another unit.

What really cracks me up about this game system is that we have a inatfaq to correct some of these issues and yakface does a great job at tying up the loose ends. And GW even gives him credit in their FAQs. What we should be focusing on is what makes it fair, and balanced, not oh because of this small caveat in the way I read the rules you are denied.

My last argument as to why the assault should be allowed is this

I'm now in the assault phase.

You may only assault the unit that you shot at, however there is an exception to this rule when firing at transports, you can check the conditions and they are satisfied. If you check the condition before the transport is destroyed then it cannot assault as it would be a new unit.

Now read the rule. substituting "it" with "the vehicle" for clarity on how I'm interpreting the rules.

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

Let's clear this up some we can drop off the assault rules portion as that isn't in argument, and doesn't change the context.

You cannot assault a unit that you didn't shoot at.

However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot the vehicle may assault the now disembarked passengers.

So this is saying if you shot at a transport unit that is not longer there you do the however part of this rule.

The conditional statement refers only to a ranged attack taking place then there is a comma, meaning you only do the second part of the statement if the first condition is met. Basic software engineering which was modeled after normal spoken/written languages.

Switching it around actually reads better from a human perspective as it takes the emphasis off of who shot the ranged attack.

The rule in affect says this:
The unit that shot the transport(it) may assault the now disembarked passengers if the(a) transport is destroyed by a ranged attack.

Even by turning around the sentence the ranged attack doesn't point to the unit that destroyed it, but only that the unit actually fired at it at some point during the shooting phase. Which is exactly how this should be interpreted in the first place.

Yes I know I changed some "a"s with "the"s as that is how you would actually phrase it in this context. I left them in so that you know where it was explicitly changed.

What on Earth are you babbling on about now?

Software engineering... what? You write software therefore you know the rules better?

I am the Queen of Sweedlandia, therefore I have the Divine Right to Rule and therefore am always right!

P.S. Sarcasm

Furthermore, you show a (again) fundamental lack of knowledge, this time of the rules of Warhammer 40,000. Your statement "You cannot assault a unit that you didn't shoot at." is highly inaccurate. The actual rule is that if you have shot, you may only assault the unit you shot at. Therefore, units that have not shot may assault any unit in range, not (as you implied) be unable to assault because they did not shoot at their target.

Oh you know me just trying to get my post count up like you it seems.

Why not try and read it, or just ignore it completely. I've said my piece and you have said yours. Flame as you feel is necessary.

I have read it. It still makes no sense whatsoever when you read the full rule. Your constant appeals to authority and strawman arguments are getting tiresome.

Gwar! wrote:What on Earth are you babbling on about now?

Software engineering... what? You write software therefore you know the rules better?

I am the Queen of Sweedlandia, therefore I have the Divine Right to Rule and therefore am always right!

P.S. Sarcasm

Yep, I got it. Good one thanks for pointing it out.

Gwar! wrote:
Furthermore, you show a (again) fundamental lack of knowledge, this time of the rules of Warhammer 40,000. Your statement "You cannot assault a unit that you didn't shoot at." is highly inaccurate. The actual rule is that if you have shot, you may only assault the unit you shot at. Therefore, units that have not shot may assault any unit in range, not (as you implied) be unable to assault because they did not shoot at their target.

Hey good catch. I wouldn't want to mislead anyone. That is exactly what I meant to say, just not as eloquently as you. Yes, please forgive me for leading all those sheep astray.

I'm locking this.



















Oh wait, wrong forum

sbeasley wrote: But seriously look at how shooting and assault works. The rule is so that you can't shoot one unit and assault a completely different unit in a different direction.

That's one purpose of it, yes. It's also (at least as explained by the Devs back when the rule was first introduced to the game) intended to limit the number of enemy units that can be affected by a single unit's activation.

Or, to put it another way, if a unit performs one action against an enemy unit, then anything else that the unit does that affects enemy units should generally affect only that same unit. This helps keep a balance between shooty units and assaulty units, and forces players to think a little more tactically about what their units are going to do.

This is an exception to that rule, because a transport and the unit that just disembarked are effectively the same unit even if not defined that way in game terms.

This perception is perhaps a large part of where you're running into disagreement. The unit and transport are not the same unit. Not even remotely. The only way that applies is that they move together.

So they wrote the exception not taking into consideration about multiple units firing at the same unit.

Frankly, I think it's more likely that they did take that into consideration, and deliberately write the rule as is to exclude those units from assaulting. Because that's how it works in every other situation in the game: If you shoot, you can only assault the unit at which you shot.

What we should be focusing on is what makes it fair, and balanced, not oh because of this small caveat in the way I read the rules you are denied.

You're more than welcome to do that in your gaming group, or in a thread discussing how people choose to play the game. But in a thread aimed at determining what the rules actually are, all that's important is the RAW.

You won't get a disparate group of poeple to all agree on what is balanced and fair any more than you will get them to agree on what was originally intended, and whether or not what was originally intended is still how the game is intended to be played.

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

This doesn't actually change the meaning of the rule, since that's what it's saying to begin with.

You cannot assault a unit that you didn't shoot at.

However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot the vehicle may assault the now disembarked passengers.

So this is saying if you shot at a transport unit that is not longer there you do the however part of this rule.

But it's not. Again, what it's saying is that the unit that shot the vehicle can assault. Which unit the 'the' is referring to is defined by the rest of the statement. In this case, since the rule is discussing the vehicle being destroyed by a ranged attack, the reference to 'the unit that shot it' can only be referring to the unit that fired the shot that destroyed the vehicle.

You have to take the statement in context. You can't just pull out the part you like and apply it without the context, as it completely changes the meaning.

Guard wrote:I'm locking this.



















Oh wait, wrong forum

In Soviet Russia, Forum locks you!

Well, since a majority have weighed in. I concede on a RAW argument. It is obvious that I'm not a literary genius, but hey I can only improve. It has been a good debate. And like I said I actually prefer your interpretation of the rule, so hey bonus for me.

But I am all for making the game as difficult against myself, so there can be no excuses when I win

I'm happy you conceded but still suspect you're uncertain as to why others feel so sure about the RAW, so I'll attempt a brief outline showcasing the sentences in question to help you understand. The full rule is actually two sentences because since the one everyone is fond of quoting begins with 'however' it is impossible to properly read it without the sentence in front of it.

"Note: remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with its lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..."

By looking at the sentence in front of the 'however' sentence you see we are talking about when a squad destroys a vehicle (that's a single squad, since within the functions of the game only a squad can ever be responsible for the actual destroyed/explodes result) I'm now going to go through the two sentences and remove some of the excess chatter and also connect the 'however' sentence to the previous sentence, since grammatically this is functionally identical to the use of 'however'.

"a squad cannot take out a transport with its lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters, however, if a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..."

I could modify this slightly to make it even more obvious thusly; (this is all adjusted properly within the English language, and is just done to highlight what the actual rule is saying - yes, I am grossly simplifying it here but it stays the same functional sentence structure.

"a squad cannot shoot and destroy a transport and then also shoot the passengers, however, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..."

The entire rule is specifically and explicitly talking about a single squad (in a slightly drawn out and awkwardly written thought). But, I think this will help clarify for you where your confusion comes from. You're taking a sentence that, because it starts with 'however' is not a complete thought, and then you're trying to apply logic to it. With the lack of utilizing the information from the previous sentence, which is connected, you are losing the focus of the rule.

Hence - 'the unit' is quite specifically about only a single unit because it's supposed to be about a single unit, not because they should have included any annotations for multiple units. Grammatically there's no reason for them to have done so, and thus the rule is clear RAW and RAI.

Regards,
Thor.

sbeasley wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Think about it like this, Squad A is shooting at the tank and does nothing, then all of a sudden Squad B Fires and it explodes. Squad A was not ready for it to explode and not ready to charge the occupants.

This would make sense if shooting happened at different times, but shooting supposedly happens all simultaneously. So both unit A and unit B are shooting at the same time. How would they know if there shots blew it up or not. They wouldn't.

While not wanting to beat the poor horse any more than necessary, it's probably also worth pointing out that this is a misconception.


Shooting from a single unit is simultaneous. But there is nothing that says that shooting from the entire army is considered simultaneous. The Shooting phase rules step through a unit at a time. It's perfectly legal within the rules of the shooting phase for one unit to blow up a transport, for example, and then the next unit to target the transport's passengers who have just bailed out.

Yaaaaaay

So this can die (again) now?

kirsanth wrote:Yaaaaaay

So this can die (again) now?

Nevar, not until the thread receives moar Cowbells and Multilazors.

insaniak wrote:
While not wanting to beat the poor horse any more than necessary, it's probably also worth pointing out that this is a misconception.


Shooting from a single unit is simultaneous. But there is nothing that says that shooting from the entire army is considered simultaneous. The Shooting phase rules step through a unit at a time. It's perfectly legal within the rules of the shooting phase for one unit to blow up a transport, for example, and then the next unit to target the transport's passengers who have just bailed out.

Yes this horse has definitely be beaten tonight. And I actually re-read that section of the BGB tonight, because I thought that it was simultaneous, but it wasn't. Only within the unit is it simultaneous.

So

Unit A: Shoots at transport and isn't destroyed.
Unit B: Shoots at transport and it is destroyed. Units disembark.
Unit C: Shoots at disembarked unit.

Unit A: Cannot assault, because the original targeted transport is no longer a valid target
Unit B: Can Assault, because of this specific rule that has been "beaten to death"
Unit C: Can Assault, because that is how the game is played silly.

While it doesn't make logical sense that it should occur this way, it is what the rules state should happen. But as the most important rule states, these are a framework and with our local group we can house rule this anyway we like.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread, and I will be more careful of my RAI arguments if people are truly wanting a RAW answer, or atleast if I'm giving a RAI answer explicitly state, hey this is how I think they are intending it to play out. But the RAW is this, even though I mixed them within this entire thread. I truly felt that there might be some RAW language that could interpret it to my RAI thought.

Oh how I wish they would have just said.

"However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack caused by the unit that shot it, the unit may assault the now disembarked passengers..." That is, by far, a more clear representation of what is being RAW

sbeasley wrote: But as the most important rule states, these are a framework and with our local group we can house rule this anyway we like.

Please, don't use TMIR for ANYTHING.

TMIR says I can request, nay, DEMAND that I autowin on a 1+ or that all my marines have 10's for all stats and a 0+ Superinvulnerable save, and if you refuse you are TFG and a cheater.
TMIR is (in my experience) used by cheaters and cheaters alone.

I guess you just won. congrats.

Sometimes, I wonder if you post stuff just to try and infuriate people or if you are truly serious.

Instead of looking how I've come around to RAW, and thinking hey maybe this guy isn't so bad, and can be reasoned with, you have to pull out one statement, and be a jerk about it. I've even offered peace, and apologized if I offended you, and only receive aggression from you.

Maybe I should be explicit in what I meant my stating the TMIR. That this is after all a game, and if all the amount of rules lawyering, and nit picking the words to death make the game not fun to play anymore, because of all the bickering. Why not house rule it, and say okay here this is how we are going to play. Tournaments are another matter. AND I specifically stated that it was only with my local group.

Why do you insist in making an argument of everything? Do you have to battle over every statement made on the boards? Was it worth it in satisfaction points or something?

Seriously just let it rest.

Oh wait I know what it is.

Gwar! wrote:TMIR says I can request, nay, DEMAND that I autowin on a 1+ or that all my marines have 10's for all stats and a 0+ Superinvulnerable save, and if you refuse you are TFG and a cheater.

You know, Gwar, no matter how many times you insist this to be the case, it's not at all what TMIR actually says.

TMIR is (in my experience) used by cheaters and cheaters alone.

TMIR is, by definition, impossible for cheaters to use, since it calls for both players to agree. If both players aren't happy with the resolution, you're not following TMIR. If both players are happy with the resolution, then nobody is cheating as the players have agreed to play that way.

You're just opposed to the idea that the rules aren't set in stone tablets brought down from the mountain.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:TMIR says I can request, nay, DEMAND that I autowin on a 1+ or that all my marines have 10's for all stats and a 0+ Superinvulnerable save, and if you refuse you are TFG and a cheater.

You know, Gwar, no matter how many times you insist this to be the case, it's not at all what TMIR actually says.

TMIR is (in my experience) used by cheaters and cheaters alone.

TMIR is, by definition, impossible for cheaters to use, since it calls for both players to agree. If both players aren't happy with the resolution, you're not following TMIR. If both players are happy with the resolution, then nobody is cheating as the players have agreed to play that way.

You're just opposed to the idea that the rules aren't set in stone tablets brought down from the mountain.

All I am saying is that TMIR is almost never used "properly" and is always used by someone wanting to cheat, citing "The rules say I have to have fun and I won't have fun unless..."

@sbeasley: I am totally serious, and I never intend to infuriate anyone. As for your thinly veiled insult of "Oh wait I know what it is", well, I shall not descend to your petty level.

It wasn't an insult at all, but I can see after reading it that it could definitely be taken the wrong way. It was kind of an incomplete sentence. I'm not trying to start anything with you.

It is good to at least see that you are serious, and not just trying to hide behind the anonymity of the web.

sbeasley wrote:It is good to at least see that you are serious, and not just trying to hide behind the anonymity of the web.

I am brusque at times I admit, but having just come back from a lovely "vacation" I assure you I have mellowed out a bit (I hope anyway).

Of course If you ever want to rant at me, my Skype is free for all to ring and whine at me. And ask rules questions

Gwar! wrote:All I am saying is that TMIR is almost never used "properly" and is always used by someone wanting to cheat, citing "The rules say I have to have fun and I won't have fun unless..."

Ignoring for a moment that this is not what you actually said, that doesn't make any sense. The fact that some people use a rule incorrectly is no reason to throw it out. LOS was almost never played properly in 4th edition... should we have just ignored the LOS rules then?

Or should we have just tried to educate people on how the rule was actually supposed to be applied?



TMIR is there to remind people that they are playing a game, and that they should feel free to adapt that game to suit themselves. But it's also very clear that both players have to agree to play the same way... So if you're going to claim that your Marines should have a 1+ save and 10's for stats, that's your choice. But it's only valid under TMIR if your opponent is also happy to play that way.

The the problem is this whole arguement is rather pointless, if you are a good player.

All one has to do is shoot the tranport with OTHER units first, thus assuring that the trasnport is already destroyed so that the unit you want to assault with is able to do so (by any interpretation of the rules)...or that the assaulting unit is the LAST unit to fire at the transport, thus allowing the assault (again, by any interpretation of the rules).

Good generalship will overcome poor rules-lawyering everytime...especially in tourneys with soft scores.

Gwar! wrote:So your whole argument is "I don't like how the game is so I'm gonna change it."

Think about it like this, Squad A is shooting at the tank and does nothing, then all of a sudden Squad B Fires and it explodes. Squad A was not ready for it to explode and not ready to charge the occupants.

Yet every other squad that didn't shoot at the tank were ready and can?

Stricly raw speaking on this particular rule, I am not sure if you didn't destroy the transport if you can assault the unit inside of it with the way the rule is being presented.

Until they make it specifically clear that the unit that destroyed it (not shot it), and only that unit may assault, I along with everyone else will continue to play it with common sense in mind and will allow an assault.

Though against that rare TFG that actually tries to pull this garbage, Ill shoot with other units first if possible and then shoot the squad inside with my nearby unit.

Night Lords wrote:Though against that rare TFG that actually tries to pull this garbage, Ill shoot with other units first if possible and then shoot the squad inside with my nearby unit.

Oh, so people following the rules is TFG now?

I feel for your opponents.

Night Lords wrote:Until they make it specifically clear that the unit that destroyed it (not shot it), and only that unit may assault, I along with everyone else will continue to play it with common sense in mind and will allow an assault.

Read the assault rules.
Units that shoot may only assault the unit that they shot.
Transports are units. The unit inside them is a different unit.

The only exeptions are pretty clear, and the singular is not vague.

I do not even have transports, so this is only a penalty for myself - as I am not TFG enough to cheat my opponent because I assume he considers details irrelevant or contrary to "common sense" - or too dim to notice them.

Oh look, surprise. @Gwar and the guy who clings onto Gwar:

You can play in your little broken game, and you can argue until your face is blue, but it means nothing. There is no proof that that situation had multiple units, nor is there any proof in the wording stating that only the unit that destroyed it may assault (as it would be "only the unit that destroyed it may assault" if that is what they intended).

Again, I know its tough, but we have to go to turn to common sense.

-Units who didnt shoot at it can assault them
-The unit which destroyed it can assault them
-The units which shot and failed to get that lucky shot stand there and do nothing...?

Yea right.

Even by RAW, going case by case:

Squad A - Shot the tank? Yes -> "The unit that shot it may assault" -> Assault

Squad B - Shot the tank? Yes -> "The unit that shot it may assault" -> Assault

Squad C - Shot the tank? No. Shot a different tank -> No assault.


Easy. It also wont get you kicked in the nuts or out of tournaments.

Except that your view flatly contradicts the rules...

As for the Tournaments thing, anyone trying your version of the rules at any I run would be ejected post haste.

Sorry, but you do assaults on a case by case basis, as you have to do DT checks, measurements, LD tests, etc. when doing so. In this case you ask yourself "this unit shot the tank?" and if it did, it may assault, as written.

And Im sure going to your "tournament" where every simple rule is argued over would be great fun to endure for 8 hours. There would more time spent arguing than playing.

Night Lords wrote:You can play in your little broken game, and you can argue until your face is blue, but it means nothing. There is no proof that that situation had multiple units, nor is there any proof in the wording stating that only the unit that destroyed it may assault (as it would be "only the unit that destroyed it may assault" if that is what they intended).

Just out of curiosity, how do you refute my explanation of the two sentences that form the rule and how they clearly show which units may or may not assault the disembarked passengers? I'm all for common sense, but I fail to see how you're overlooking the points I raised. Would you mind revisiting that and shooting down my interpretation so I can see where you're coming from?

Regards,
Thor.

All your argument does is prove that it is indeed only 1 unit that the rulebook is discussing. The sentence you made into one sentence, from your side of the argument, brings two completely different thoughts into one. You start talking in a singular form, and then suddenly youre bringing multiple units into the argument by saying "[only] the unit that shot [destroyed] it may then assault".

From my point of view, it is a singular unit throughout, rendering the "unit that shot it may assault" as the unit that was being discussed a sentence before - The unit that may shoot lascannons, but cannot shoot bolters at the disembarked troops, however the unit that shot it may now assault.

It's simply given us a situation where there is one unit with lascannons and bolters, showing us the rules for how to deal with the now disembarked troops. In those two sentences we find we cannot shoot the unit with the remaining guns, however the unit may now assault.

Seeing as how you do everything in a specific order, there is no need to mention a second unit because only one of three things can happen:

- the unit destroys the vehicle, and the above is put in place
- the unit fails to destroy the vehicle
- the unit shoots the troops after the vehicle is destroyed

So seeing as how it's a single unit being discussed, I fail to see how the wording proves that a second unit (an entirely different single unit) that missed cannot assault when the rule says that the unit that shot (not destroyed it) may now assault. On a case by case basis, which is 100% the way you play it when assaulting, you have to look at the rule in isolation. By doing so, you ask "This unit shot the transport?", and if it's yes, you may assault the unit.

Night Lords wrote:Oh look, surprise. @Gwar and the guy who clings onto Gwar

Ohh!
Is that me?

Or was I missing something again?


I understand your . . . "logic" previously then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Much easier if you ignore previous posts. Or just never read.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/250105.page

Still.

Honestly man, I cant even reply to you because I have no idea wtf youre trying to say (to be honest I never know what youre trying to say). So I didnt read a topic from a month ago...which has people arguing the same thing I am? Ok?

Its funny now how my "logic" is simply wrong with no explanation though.

Night Lords wrote:Its funny now how my "logic" is simply wrong with no explanation though.

We have explained it many times. Re-read the thread and you will see.

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:Its funny now how my "logic" is simply wrong with no explanation though.

We have explained it many times. Re-read the thread and you will see.

I saw a lot of insults and "CONTEXT!" answers, but I fail to see where youve proven anything wrong.

Dont worry though, you cant, because its clearly written here in the rulebook as a singular unit. Unless you can change the English language of course (good luck )

But yet you appear to be the one "changing the English language" because even though the rule is talking singular you feel that an unstated concept of firing at a transport can be inserted into the middle of two connected sentences to allow assault...okay, I'm going to try to break down my line of thought and your line of thought in order to make sure I understand this.

I think we both agree that: There are two sentences that are under consideration here.

I believe they state:
1. A unit that fires at and destroys a transport may not also fire at the now disembarked unit.
2. However they may then assault them (if meeting other assault guidelines)

You believe they state:
1. A unit that fires at and destroys a transport may not also fire at the now disembarked unit.
2. However any and every unit that fired upon the transport may then assault the now disembarked unit (if meeting other assault guidelines)

If this was what was intended why would they use the connector "however"? That is really where I'm getting the hangup here. They're talking about a unit that destroyed the transport and what they cannot shoot, and then say 'however' to explain that they can assault. That is, to me, plain as day English.

Because of the use of 'However' the only way to access that sentence isi through the previous sentence. The previous sentence puts the requirement to destroy the transport on the unit that wants to assault. Therefore a unit may not assault unless it destroyed the transport in question.

Since our...well, at least my...confusion seems to be hovering over the use of 'however' could you just explain to me how you read the however and how it does or does not connect to the previous sentence? That is really my only hangup with reading the rule the way I do as opposed to the way you do, and I think therein lies the solution.

Regards,
Thor.

Thor - first off, thanks for actually being respectful on here. With all the childish posts on here its easy to go down to their level.

In my opinion, the "however" is there in the context of "You may not shoot the troops, however, you may assault if the transport was destroyed and the unit shot it".

Night Lords wrote:Thor - first off, thanks for actually being respectful on here. With all the childish posts on here its easy to go down to their level.

In my opinion, the "however" is there in the context of "You may not shoot the troops, however, you may assault if the transport was destroyed and the unit shot it".

Nice, so "My hypocrisy knows no bounds" is fair?

As far as the opinion, sure, that was given pages back too.

Night Lords wrote:In my opinion, the "however" is there in the context of "You may not shoot the troops, however, you may assault if the transport was destroyed and the unit shot it".

Okay, I believe I grok where you're coming from.

I will note that the reason I disagree with you is because the use of 'However' in English unfortunately doesn't support your interpretation. It's use as a conjunctive adverb irrevocably connects it to the previous sentence - and the previous sentence is clearly talking about something only one squad can do (destroy a transport), therefore the subject of the second sentence, because of 'however', is obligated to also be a singular (in this case 'the unit') For your interpretation to work you would have to accept that 'the unit' in the second sentence would have been more accurately written the unit(s) but, by the presence of 'however' we know this cannot be the case. That's what makes the rule so clear to me in the way I read it.

If I went with your reading of it wouldn't I then be obligated to believe that the writer of the two sentences in question intended for your method but grammatically set up the sentence to not support it? I know it's apparently uncool to support RAW over RAI, but I'm going on the basis that if a rule isn't a "gray area" then we ought to go with the way it's written. Your thoughts?

Didn't this come up a couple of months ago?

Based purely on the language, the rule is too ambiguous to determine what happens in this situation. There is no way to determine for certain which unit is "the" unit referred to in the rule when multiple units fire, so it's a blind spot as far as the language goes.

Thor665 wrote:

Night Lords wrote:In my opinion, the "however" is there in the context of "You may not shoot the troops, however, you may assault if the transport was destroyed and the unit shot it".

Okay, I believe I grok where you're coming from.

I will note that the reason I disagree with you is because the use of 'However' in English unfortunately doesn't support your interpretation. It's use as a conjunctive adverb irrevocably connects it to the previous sentence - and the previous sentence is clearly talking about something only one squad can do (destroy a transport), therefore the subject of the second sentence, because of 'however', is obligated to also be a singular (in this case 'the unit') For your interpretation to work you would have to accept that 'the unit' in the second sentence would have been more accurately written the unit(s) but, by the presence of 'however' we know this cannot be the case. That's what makes the rule so clear to me in the way I read it.

If I went with your reading of it wouldn't I then be obligated to believe that the writer of the two sentences in question intended for your method but grammatically set up the sentence to not support it? I know it's apparently uncool to support RAW over RAI, but I'm going on the basis that if a rule isn't a "gray area" then we ought to go with the way it's written. Your thoughts?

It does not require the word "unit(s)" because we're still talking about the unit that may not continue to fire their bolters into the disembarked troops. Im not sure how the word "however" doesnt support my interpretation or why you brought up singular units, because thats exactly what Im saying. Im saying the rule is on a case by case basis, looking at each squad in isolation. The rule does not bring multiple squads into consideration.

The first sentence does nothing for the second (where the whole issue is based around) except to tell you that "the unit that shot it" is the unit from the previous sentence, to inform you that while you were unable to shoot the troops, you may however assault them.

The sentence essentially says "Squad A may not fire their bolters into the squad, however, Squad A may assault the unit (because they shot it)".

Squad B, which shot and failed to destroy the tank ignores the first part because there are no troops to shoot at at the time of their shooting. They may simply assault the unit because they shot at it.

Night Lords wrote:It does not require the word "unit(s)" because we're still talking about the unit that may not continue to fire their bolters into the disembarked troops. Im not sure how the word "however" doesnt support my interpretation or why you brought up singular units, because thats exactly what Im saying.

Well, up to this point we're agreeing, but I'll show you where we digress below. 'However' is important for the reasons I listed in my post above and I suggest you're not using the word correctly in the way you're reading the rule. In short, it makes everything in the second sentence dependent upon the information in the first sentence.

Im saying the rule is on a case by case basis, looking at each squad in isolation. The rule does not bring multiple squads into consideration.

I agree that it's about one squad, and I'll even agree it's a case by case basis, but the 'however' will be important in understanding the case by case.

The first sentence does nothing for the second (where the whole issue is based around)

I strongly disagree here. It's impossible for a sentence to begin with 'however' unless the sentence in front of it connects and affects it. As i said, I feel this is where we're diverting.

except to tell you that "the unit that shot it" is the unit from the previous sentence, to inform you that while you were unable to shoot the troops, you may however assault them.

I'll agree and have always believed that 'the unit' being referenced is the same in both sentences.

The sentence essentially says "Squad A may not fire their bolters into the squad, however, Squad A may assault the unit (because they shot it)".

Shot *and* destroyed it. The 'however' makes the second part intrinsic upon the first part. They must have destroyed the transport in order to access the sentence that 'however' begins.

Squad B, which shot and failed to destroy the tank ignores the first part because there are no troops to shoot at at the time of their shooting. They may simply assault the unit because they shot at it.

Simply put, I disagree that the word "however" suddenly makes the first sentence a prerequisite. I also disagree with your interpretation of the word "however", to me it clearly is saying you may not shoot, however you may assault.

The sentence does *not* say shot or destroyed. It says the unit that shot it, period.

Looking at it again, I would have to say that while both sentences are single units, I would argue that the sentences are completely different thoughts discussing two seperate rules, and the inclusion of the word "however" is irrelevant. In the example given they have a lascannon firing and destroying a transport. A lascannon is a heavy weapon. Seeing as how "units firing a heavy weapon in the shooting phase may not assault in the assault phase", I disagree entirely that the first sentence is a prerequisite, as in the example given its not even possible. This leads me to believe the rule deals with the shooting phase in one sentence, and then the assault phase in the other.

With that said, I think it's even more clear now that it's two entirely different rules, and the use of the word "however" is just there strictly to point out this very unique rule where you may not shoot troops but may assault.

Finally, considering all assaults are done on a case to case basis, you look at the now obvious assault rule after shooting a transport:

Was a transport destroyed by a ranged attack? Yes. This unit shot at it? Yes -> you may now assault the disembarked passengers.

I would also like to point out that most people on here give GW way too much literary credit. They are after all game designers, not literary artists by any sense of the words.

While I understand why RAW supports the first unit that shot and didn't destroy the vehicle not allow it to assault.

RAI should also be considered in this manner. I makes sense for the first unit to be able to assault, to deny the assault only adds confusion as it is only logical for all units that shot the transport to be able to assault if one was able to under the certain condition of the transport being destroyed.

Again you must ask yourself does GW hire designers or authors. Clearly if they would have hired an English professor of some sort this wouldn't be an issue, as it would have been well formulated in the first place.

Also consider that shooting is not simultaneous like assaulting is. It is only simultaneous within the unit. Thus the shooting rules are only going to be worded from a single unit's perspective and how the rules affect them. The shooting rules are very linear. If this then do that. And so on.

sbeasley wrote:RAI should also be considered in this manner. I makes sense for the first unit to be able to assault, to deny the assault only adds confusion as it is only logical for all units that shot the transport to be able to assault if one was able to under the certain condition of the transport being destroyed.

This is a great example of why RAI is potentially handy for keeping the game moving, but useless for determining what the rules are actually supposed to be.

Because while wht you've suggested here is certainly reasonable, I think it makes more sense to stick with the general premise of the assault rules, which is that units that shot can only assault their target. So RAI, to me, would be that only the unit that destroyed the transport can assault the unit the disembarked.

Night Lords wrote:Simply put, I disagree that the word "however" suddenly makes the first sentence a prerequisite. I also disagree with your interpretation of the word "however", to me it clearly is saying you may not shoot, however you may assault.

I'm totally fine with you disagreeing with me, but I would note that it is not "my" interpretation. It is simply the way the English language works.

For instance your sentence above "you may not shoot, however you may assault." is grammatically incorrect. You would have to write it "you may not shoot, however, you may assault." and if you write that then what you're writing is; "you may not shoot, you may assault." Which would only argue my point about how clearly it's connected to the first sentence. Though, really, this is all just grammatical blabbering by this point, as I think you understand my point you just choose to use 'however' in a way either I'm unfamiliar with or in a way it's not really meant to be used (or you're just comfortable ignoring the 'however' in sake of doing something that, to you, "makes sense") All of this I'm fine with, I just see no support for your interpretation within the rules themselves.

sbeasley wrote:RAI should also be considered in this manner. I makes sense for the first unit to be able to assault, to deny the assault only adds confusion as it is only logical for all units that shot the transport to be able to assault if one was able to under the certain condition of the transport being destroyed.

Yet I (and I presume you) are totally comfortable with the concept that a unit that deep strikes and shoots a unit may not assault it even though another unit might be able to because deep striking has special rules about getting to shoot yet not assault. It is hardly a sudden or strange interpretation in the rules that in certain situations units are unable or able to perform assaults that others may not. To be honest until these threads started popping up here it had never even occured to me that a unit that shot and didn't destroy a transport could assault the unit that disembarked because it wasn't allowed under the normal rules for assault. SO while I am willing to accept that your interpretation "makes sense" I would add that I see no reason my position makes any more or less sense.

I'm also totally fine with RAI in cases involving Librarians in Terminator armor where, to my mind, clearly the RAW has a linguistic anomaly that appears a simple oversight. I just don't see that as likely in a specialized note that reads normally unless you presume the writers (however poorly they may or may not be versed in English) used the incorrect word at the start of a sentence.

Thor665 wrote:
It is simply the way the English language works.

You see, while I accept disagreeing with you, i do not agree with this statement at all. This implies that my argument is somehow void, when it is not. The use of the word however in no way implies that the first sentence is a prerequisite in anyway. It connects the two sentences, yes, but thats all it does. Its a similar train of thought, but the "however" is just there to make it clear that while in this case you cannot shoot the troops, you can assault.

I think your interpretation of the word "however" is an assumption, and an assumption that is really has no grounds to be stated as a fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thor665 wrote:For instance your sentence above "you may not shoot, however you may assault." is grammatically incorrect. You would have to write it "you may not shoot, however, you may assault." and if you write that then what you're writing is; "you may not shoot, you may assault." Which would only argue my point about how clearly it's connected to the first sentence. Though, really, this is all just grammatical blabbering by this point, as I think you understand my point you just choose to use 'however' in a way either I'm unfamiliar with or in a way it's not really meant to be used (or you're just comfortable ignoring the 'however' in sake of doing something that, to you, "makes sense") All of this I'm fine with, I just see no support for your interpretation within the rules themselves.

You are right, without the comma it isn't correct, but that's not really an issue. I think you're missing the point because while it is connected to the first sentence (in order to flow with the same idea), in no way does the rule *only* apply if the first sentence is performed. The rulebook is written to communicate to you, and the use of the word however in no way, shape or form indicates that it is a prerequisite. They are clearly two ideas with two completely different rules. If you can't see past that I don't know what to tell you.

Night Lords wrote:

Thor665 wrote:
It is simply the way the English language works.

You see, while I accept disagreeing with you, i do not agree with this statement at all. This implies that my argument is somehow void, when it is not. The use of the word however in no way implies that the first sentence is a prerequisite in anyway. It connects the two sentences, yes, but thats all it does. Its a similar train of thought, but the "however" is just there to make it clear that while in this case you cannot shoot the troops, you can assault.

I think your interpretation of the word "however" is an assumption, and an assumption that is really has no grounds to be stated as a fact.

I am not attempting to be trite or simplistic, but at the same time I think I've taken a fair bit of time to explain to you how the word 'however' is used. I said I was fine with it that you chose not to use it that way, but I am oddly put off that you're acting like I'm "assuming" how to use the word. I am willing to simply disagree with you when it comes to the rules of 40k, but in the use of 'however' there is an absolute and provable right and wrong as to how the English language uses the word. I offer you some potential reading;

How to use 'However'
How to use 'However'
How to use 'However'

I would welcome you to do research of your own and come back to me with any source on English grammar that debunks my beliefs in this regard.

When it comes to the use of 'however' in a sentence, without trying to sound like a jerk - I am correct about how it is used, I am assuming nothing, and I'm afraid to say it is you who are 'assuming' things about the use of the word. Go ahead and return to the rulebook and replace 'however' with 'nevertheless' and see how the rule reads to you then. 'Nevertheless' is a grammatically identical replacement for 'however' in the way it is used in that sentence. The two sentences are connected and it's not because I'm assuming stuff or trying to make up things in order to prove you wrong. All I am doing is using the rules of the language the words and sentences of the rulebook are written in.

If you can't see past that I don't know what to tell you.

For the record I feel I've worked fairly hard to understand your point and have explained it back to you. I have even said what parts I could accept and what specific word changes would make me reassess my current standing. I've explained why I choose not to use the rule through your interpretation and why I feel my way is properly supported via the rules. I'm not trying to come off as unreceptive to your point of view - if I am doing so please let me know where, and how, I did so.

I would think the only reason the marines could be argued that they may attack the disembarked units is because it only says shot at and not destroyed, implying that the unit must use its ranged attacks at the vehicle if it wants to assault whats inside.

Reasoning for this, the rules for shooting and assaulting units, the assaulters may only target the unit they shot for assault, they dont need to do any damage, but the must target them.

just an idea...

They are connected, so your 3 links and giant paragraph werent necessary because we agree on that.

However, being connected does not automatically make them the same idea. The point of connecting two ideas together with "however" is to show that its in the same situation, but they are two seperate ideas (or in this case, rules). The two seperate ideas are shooting and assault, which in itself are two completely different phases.

It's to the point now where it's just getting silly. They are connected, yes, but in no way does that mean under a rulebook that one HAS to happen before the other.

Again, sorry if you can't see that.

I think insaniak's rule o' grammar in YMDC has just been proven....

Night Lords wrote:However, being connected does not automatically make them the same idea.

Here is a sentence, it's connected to its previous sentence by a 'however'. In my world I cannot understand what this sentence means or what it is on about without referencing the previous sentence, that you now appear to agree *is* connected. So you then agree that the above sentence, without reference of its previous sentence, is unable to be read and understood - yet you continue with a belief that a rule starting with 'however', though connected, is still independantly applicable to any and all units that fired at a given transport?

If they're connected, and you need to read the previous sentence to understand the one that begins with 'however' then you are correct that I "can't see that" because I don't understand how you then feel that it's possible for a unit to only utilize the second part of a connected rule. Could you explain that for me, or am I totally losing where you're going here?

*sigh*

Having a restrictive action followed by a permissive one DOES make it connected. That's the sole connection between the two. This is the only situation I can think of where you cant shoot but you may assault. Assault phase is followed by shooting, so it is connected in every regard.

If the first sentence was a prerequisite, they would have used terms like "provided you destroyed the tank...". No where does it imply the first sentence must have happened in order to assault.

Youre in GW and you need to use the washroom. "Sorry Thor, you may not use this washroom as it's for employees only. However, you may use the public washroom next door.". Are you really going to tell me that the only way for me to use the washroom next door is if I'm not allowed to use the washroom in GW?

That's insane, and is exactly what you're arguing.

Because shooting is resolves one unit at a time, the process as I see it goes as follows:

1. Choose a Unit
2. Unit Shoots.
3. Is the vehicle destroyed? If no; go to 1, if yes; go to 4.
4. This unit may assault the disembarked troops.

If you allowed the interpretation of 'any unit that shot at the vehicle in the whole shooting phase' - you'd run into situations where an assault squad would unload their bolt pistols at a land raider in case the devastator squad managed to blow it up.

Night Lords wrote:Youre in GW and you need to use the washroom. "Sorry Thor, you may not use this washroom as it's for employees only. However, you may use the public washroom next door.". Are you really going to tell me that the only way for me to use the washroom next door is if I'm not allowed to use the washroom in GW?

That's insane, and is exactly what you're arguing.

Sorry I'm making you *sigh*.

Your bathroom example is interesting, but it doesn't follow the full and proper structure of the example in the book and is thus slightly misleading.

Thor, who is in GW, wishes to use a washroom but may not use the employee water closet. However, he may use the public water closet next door.

What I am saying is that; if I do not have a desire to use the washroom, then there is never a need or ability for me to go to the next sentence to discover I can use the one next door. Also, without the first sentence, we never discover *why* I need to use the one next door. If you keep discussing grammar I really feel you should not be dismissive of my 'paragraph and three links' post above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

unistoo wrote:Because shooting is resolves one unit at a time, the process as I see it goes as follows:

1. Choose a Unit
2. Unit Shoots.
3. Is the vehicle destroyed? If no; go to 1, if yes; go to 4.
4. This unit may assault the disembarked troops.

If you allowed the interpretation of 'any unit that shot at the vehicle in the whole shooting phase' - you'd run into situations where an assault squad would unload their bolt pistols at a land raider in case the devastator squad managed to blow it up.

I concur with your assessment, as do a fair number of others. Some disagree though and the current reasoning seems to be a disagreement over the use of the word 'however' and what it does or does not entail. We're very exciting people here.

Thor665 wrote:
Sorry I'm making you *sigh*.

Your bathroom example is interesting, but it doesn't follow the full and proper structure of the example in the book and is thus slightly misleading.

Thor, who is in GW, wishes to use a washroom but may not use the employee water closet. However, he may use the public water closet next door.

What I am saying is that; if I do not have a desire to use the washroom, then there is never a need or ability for me to go to the next sentence to discover I can use the one next door. Also, without the first sentence, we never discover *why* I need to use the one next door. If you keep discussing grammar I really feel you should not be dismissive of my 'paragraph and three links' post above.

Youre still looking at it the wrong way. Granted, I came up with that comparison in two seconds just to throw it out, theres a million more out there. The one i provided still works.

Going to the washroom is the same as attacking.
Going in GW is the same as shooting
Going next door is the same as assaulting.

I want to go to the washroom [attack your troops]. I may not go in GW [shoot them]. However, I may go next door [assault them]. You wish to do something, in one situation you cannot, in the other you can. That's all it is, it's actually extremely simple and I think you're making it far more complicated than it needs to be.

unistoo wrote:If you allowed the interpretation of 'any unit that shot at the vehicle in the whole shooting phase' - you'd run into situations where an assault squad would unload their bolt pistols at a land raider in case the devastator squad managed to blow it up.

Why would that happen? Even if they didn't shoot at it first, AS would be able to assault the units inside if the Devastators blew it up.

Where do you include the destroying of the transport in the first sentence in that example?

It is extremely simple in your example, but your example is not a proper reflection of what the sentences you're exemplifying are.

The first sentence has an action (destroying a transport) and a restriction (may not shoot the disembarked troops). The second sentence has a conjunctive adverb (however) and a permission (may assault) Your example lacks an action and thus of course will have a different meaning then the example you are not fully drawing from. You need to have them in two sentences with the grammar remaining the same otherwise what you're doing is making new sentences which, of course, could have different meanings.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

unistoo wrote:If you allowed the interpretation of 'any unit that shot at the vehicle in the whole shooting phase' - you'd run into situations where an assault squad would unload their bolt pistols at a land raider in case the devastator squad managed to blow it up.

Why would that happen? Even if they didn't shoot at it first, AS would be able to assault the units inside if the Devastators blew it up.

Whoops, misunderstood that part of the debate.

I'm still not sure why people are trying to insert a plurality into a sentence that deals strictly in the singular though.

Thor665 wrote:Where do you include the destroying of the transport in the first sentence in that example?

It is extremely simple in your example, but your example is not a proper reflection of what the sentences you're exemplifying are.

The first sentence has an action (destroying a transport) and a restriction (may not shoot the disembarked troops). The second sentence has a conjunctive adverb (however) and a permission (may assault) Your example lacks an action and thus of course will have a different meaning then the example you are not fully drawing from. You need to have them in two sentences with the grammar remaining the same otherwise what you're doing is making new sentences which, of course, could have different meanings.

The point was that's how I interpreted "however", and it's perfectly legit. You argued it can't be used without being a prerequisite and Ive proven that wrong. Im not making a perfect example because you should now be able to use common sense and apply it to the rulebook (seriously, lascannons, bolters, shooting & assaulting...what is truly going to compare to that?)

Please just go look up conjunctive adverbs and learn what they mean and do.

As I said a few posts ago I'm perfectly fine with you playing the rule that way - I was not fine with you suggesting I was the one making an error in how I read 'however'. You are perfectly entitled to read it and play it any way you care to, but the English language suggests one is correct and the other is not.

Seriously, this is getting really ridiculous. Why do I have to look something up when Ive just proven a case where the use of "however" falls into my interpretation? How can there possibly be something out there denying my interpretation of word when I just gave an example that does work?

Ive never ever in my life had a situation where the word "however" somehow completely restricted the following sentence into being solely linked the sentence before it.

Really, Im done with this "however" issue. If you can't put two and two together, I can't help you man. It's painfully obvious.

unistoo wrote:Because shooting is resolves one unit at a time, the process as I see it goes as follows:

1. Choose a Unit
2. Unit Shoots.
3. Is the vehicle destroyed? If no; go to 1, if yes; go to 4.
4. This unit may assault the disembarked troops.

If you allowed the interpretation of 'any unit that shot at the vehicle in the whole shooting phase' - you'd run into situations where an assault squad would unload their bolt pistols at a land raider in case the devastator squad managed to blow it up.

true, true, but keep in mind, the devastators could simply be resolved first, and if they blow it up, the assault squad shoots and assaults the troops inside anyway...

gameandwatch wrote:true, true, but keep in mind, the devastators could simply be resolved first, and if they blow it up, the assault squad shoots and assaults the troops inside anyway...

Exactly... but if a tactical squad also shot their meltagun at the transport before it was destroyed by the devs, they could not choose to assault the squad that just piled out (because a transport is not the same unit as the unit it carries of course). I initially thought some were arguing that it was the unit that destroyed it alone that could assault the troops.

Night Lords wrote:Seriously, this is getting really ridiculous. Why do I have to look something up when Ive just proven a case where the use of "however" falls into my interpretation? How can there possibly be something out there denying my interpretation of word when I just gave an example that does work?

Except your example doesn't work.

Your sentence "I want to go to the washroom [attack your troops]. I may not go in GW [shoot them]. However, I may go next door [assault them]." Linguistically does not allow for the going next door sentence to exist without the previous sentence. I do not go next door unless I am in GW, want to use the loo, and am told that I can't use the one there. That actually supports my interpretation, not yours.

Yes, physically if I was there I could go and use the washroom next door without ever having to go into GW - but that doesn't disprove the way the grammar in the sentences you wrote works. If you take the second sentence alone then you have a functionally illegible sentence that means nothing without the sentence in front of it. Likewise, in the rules, a unit cannot use the incomplete non-functional partial rule of the second sentence without using the sentence in front of it to clarify whether or not it can use the rule.

Conjunctive Adverb To be frank, the sheer fact that I know what a conjunctive adverb is seems to suggest, to me anyway, that maybe you might want to listen to me when I describe how the grammar of a given sentence works. If you can tell me what part of a sentence 'however' is in this situation other then a conjunctive adverb then your arguement might bear some merit.

Ive never ever in my life had a situation where the word "however" somehow completely restricted the following sentence into being solely linked the sentence before it.

I am proud for you? Here, allow me to pop your cherry;

"However, each model entering or moving through difficult terrain, or assaulting an enemy who is standing in difficult terrain or behind a obstacle, must take a dangerous terrain test."

Ah, okay, so difficult terrain generates dangerous terrain tests. This is an exact quote from the rule book (I can provide the page number if you like), and since the 'However' doesn't have any connectivity or requirements to the previous sentence I can read this one alone and apply it. The rule book defines what a model is. So, we're good to go, I know any and all models entering difficult terrain need to make dangerous terrain checks. I mean, this seems strange as then why would they need a difference between difficult and dangerous terrain, but I guess it doesn't matter.

Really, Im done with this "however" issue. If you can't put two and two together, I can't help you man. It's painfully obvious.

Night Lord, you're just using incorrect grammar. That's just fine, though I don't know why you're so loathe to admit it. RAI is fine, but you're just not using the English language correctly when you read and interpret this particular rule.

Okay guys, as somebody who teaches grammar (and writes grammar test-prep books) for a living, I think I can throw some light on the "however" issue.

Here the conjunctive adverb isn't really suggesting any kind of restriction. It's just functioning as a conjunction that shows contrast between what "the unit" can do and what they can't do. So it's purely stylistic and can be omitted completely without changing the meaning of the paragraph. You can't draw any solid conclusion from the language based on the use of "however."

The key to understanding this passage is in the second clause "the unit that shot it may assault..." There are two possible interpretations for this clause:

1. It means "the unit that *destroyed* it may assault..."

2. It means "*any* unit that shot it may assault..."

But the clause doesn't say either one of these things, and what it does say can conceivably be interpreted to mean either one. Based on "context" or "common sense," you can reasonably come to either conclusion.

So neither conclusion can be known to be the "correct" reading, since either one can be correct. The rule is ambiguous as written and either conclusion is a judgment call based on your assumptions about which way to read it.

Thank you, that's exactly what Ive been saying about this however deal ^. Now we can move on

So you submit that the conjunctive adverb has no bearing on the potential interpretation of 'the unit' and whether or not it's included is grammatical functionless?

Because of the sheer nature of what an adverb does and then its use as a conjunction wouldn't the inclusion of the conjunctive adverb by definition connect the two subject units in the two sentences, and by its absence separate and not connect them therefore dramatically changing the form of the sentence?

Since you teach grammar I'd love to have that answer, because if 'however' can be absolutely removed without changing the function of the sentence then I would agree with Night Lord's interpretation. I just don't see how it can be removed without changing the form of the sentence since, after all, its inclusion or exclusion so strongly affects the way I'd read it.

The adverb functions to answer who, what, where, when, style questions and the conjunction connects the two thoughts. I don't see how it can be treated as "just" a conjunction when it is also an adverb.

I'd love some clarification if you could be so bothered.

Regards,
Thor.

From your own link:

A conjunctive adverb is a transitional word that joins two clauses that could be independent sentences, and it provides meaning about the relationship between the two sentences.

The relationship is that they take place one after another, and in a specific way in this situation. No more, no less. However, they could be two completely different sentences. No where does it say the second sentence is completely dependent on the first (aka, the first is a prerequisite). It clearly says they can be independent sentences, meaning they have their own thoughts and ideas unrelated to the other.

There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

Night Lords wrote:There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

Because you have been shown up? It has just been shown your constant "I am right" is not correct.

Night Lords wrote:The relationship is that they take place one after another, and in a specific way in this situation. No more, no less. However, they could be two completely different sentences. No where does it say the second sentence is completely dependent on the first (aka, the first is a prerequisite). It clearly says they can be independent sentences, meaning they have their own thoughts and ideas unrelated to the other.

There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

Yes, they could be separate, but the conjunction is used to show a connection, to ignore the conjunction is incorrect (though perhaps Flavius has something to school me on in that regard). If the sentences have the conjunction 'however' that could be equally written nevertheless, you must have performed/done the previous in order to reach the latter. You can't skip the step unless you're allowed to remove the conjunction.

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

Because you have been shown up? It has just been shown your constant "I am right" is not correct.

No - for the issue at hand, I can't say Im 100% right because I see the other side's point. As flav said, it's not exactly clear, and you can interpret it different ways. Luckily of all the tournaments and games Ive played and watched, no one has ever tried to pull this garbage, and the very nature of it to halt the game and prevent your opponent from doing something on an issue so unclear will get you looked down upon.

As for my post, I was talking about the "however" argument that has become the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen on here. The most common use of the word is my interpretation of it, and it does *not* restrict the previous sentence - but really, Im sick of thinking of this silly issue, so Im not going to go back to it.

However, your post brought nothing to this discussion and was an outright flame. Once again it's an insult with myself on the defensive because you are insecure about the other side feeling theyre right (even though you misinterpreted what I meant) . I think you should take a good look at your own posting antics before commenting on mine.

I'm happy to supply that answer, Thor.

"...a squad cannot take out a transport with its lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..."

Adverbs, as you know, modify verbs. In this case, "However" is functioning as a conjunction that shows the relationship between the verb in the first sentence "cannot take out..(and then) mow down" and the verb in the second sentence "may assault." In this instance, "however" shows a contrast between "cannot take out (and) mow" and "may assault." Some entity cannot do action a, however some entity may do action b.

Where your argument takes a wrong turn is that you're trying to use "however" to show something about the *subjects* of the two sentences, rather than the *verbs* of the two sentences. Subjects, as you know, are made up of nouns, and adverbs don't modify nouns, they modify verbs. So the answers to the key questions about whether "a squad" in sentence 1 is the same as "the unit" in sentence two, and about where the "ranged attack" in sentence two comes from are all questions about the relationships between *nouns* which are not modified by the adverb "however."

Does that answer your question?

Thor665 wrote:
Yes, they could be separate, but the conjunction is used to show a connection, to ignore the conjunction is incorrect (though perhaps Flavius has something to school me on in that regard). If the sentences have the conjunction 'however' that could be equally written nevertheless, you must have performed/done the previous in order to reach the latter. You can't skip the step unless you're allowed to remove the conjunction.

The most common usage of the word is one restrictive/negative action followed by a prohibitive/positive action.

"You did poorly on the math test. However, you did fantastic on the English test." - you must do poorly on a math test to do fantastic on an English test? No.

"We are all out of turbo man dolls. However, we have a ton of booster doll you may purchase" - There must not be any turbo man dolls in order to buy boosters? No.

"You may concede this argument. However, due to your stubbornness, you probably will not" - You must concede the argument in order to not to??? No.

How many more examples do you want?? It is not restrictive in any way shape or form. The relationship between the two is that they both happen after a transport is destroyed. That's it

Flav can continue it from here as I now see above.

Night Lords wrote:There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

LOL

kirsanth wrote:

Night Lords wrote:There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

LOL

Please don't post if all youre going to do is flame and add nothing to the topic.

For the record, I still think Night Lords is wrong about "the unit that shot it" meaning "any unit that shot it."

My most fundamental position is still that the rule is ambiguous beyond any hope of getting a definite answer when multiple units shoot at a transport and one of them destroys it. The rule should say either "the unit that destroyed it" or "any unit that shot it," not "the unit that shot it."

My best guess based on pure opinion and the proximity of "destroyed" in the same sentence as "the unit that shot it" is that the authors meant for it to say "the unit that destroyed it may assault."

But the rule doesn't actually say that, unfortunately. But neither does it say "any unit that shot."

At the very least we could agree on the fact that it is vague and ambiguous rules question without a definite answer....


....right?

Like I told thor, I can agree to disagree with the issue (just not the "however" part). In my opinion the way you play it will just slow the game, cause arguments, and make for a more awkward game. I've also never seen anyone contest this in all the games Ive played, so I can't say that it's the norm or that your opponent wont be taken back by your attempt to prevent him from doing something (especially when it's not exactly clear). If that's how you play it though, I just hope we don't cross paths

That's just my opinion.

Night Lords wrote:Please don't post if all youre going to do is flame and add nothing to the topic.

Then why have you been posting?

-Zing-

To further add to the grammar Nazism, it is spelt "you're", not "youre".

Honestly now, what's your problem? I'm not talking to you or about you (and putting -zing- doesn't suddenly make it ok). That post was completely unnecessary.

Night Lords wrote:Like I told thor, I can agree to disagree with the issue (just not the "however" part). In my opinion the way you play it will just slow the game, cause arguments, and make for a more awkward game. I've also never seen anyone contest this in all the games Ive played, so I can't say that it's the norm or that your opponent wont be taken back by your attempt to prevent him from doing something (especially when it's not exactly clear). If that's how you play it though, I just hope we don't cross paths

That's just my opinion.

Thank you for somewhat agreeing to disagree, Night Lords.

However, I also want to point out
-the "appeal to dire consequences" fallacy about slowing, causing arguments, and making things awkward or taking your opponent aback. These things won't necessarily happen, and even if they do they aren't evidence that a particular conclusion is more correct.
-the "appeal to popularity" from your experience of seeing it played a particular way. The most popular answer is not necessarily the correct one.
-the "appeal to force" (aka bullying) fallacy in the veiled threat about crossing paths. Smilies and "just my opinion" disclaimers aside, this argument doesn't say anything about the rules. It's just aggression.

Attaching value judgments to a particular reading of the rules doesn't advance anyone's understanding. Please stick to discussion of the rules.

Night Lords wrote:Honestly now, what's your problem? I'm not talking to you or about you (and putting -zing- doesn't suddenly make it ok). That post was completely unnecessary.

Well, considering that the issue has been resolved, I wished to make a commentary about how you did not include an apostrophe when you have been harping on about grammar for the last 5 pages.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Thank you for somewhat agreeing to disagree, Night Lords.

However, I also want to point out
-the "appeal to dire consequences" fallacy about slowing, causing arguments, and making things awkward or taking your opponent aback. These things won't necessarily happen, and even if they do they aren't evidence that a particular conclusion is more correct.
-the "appeal to popularity" from your experience of seeing it played a particular way. The most popular answer is not necessarily the correct one.
-the "appeal to force" (aka bullying) fallacy in the veiled threat about crossing paths. Smilies and "just my opinion" disclaimers aside, this argument doesn't say anything about the rules. It's just aggression.

Attaching value judgments to a particular reading of the rules doesn't advance anyone's understanding. Please stick to discussion of the rules.

Hear Hear! (and putting doesn't suddenly make it ok).

I swear this thread has turned into a 'last clap' contest except instead of claps it's insults and the winner is whoever gets the last insult in before the thread is locked.

Yeah, and I've got the last clap, chumps!!