Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If multiple units shoot at a transport, can only the unit that actually destroys the transport assault the unit that was inside the transport?

It seems most people agreed that RAI is any unit that shot the transport can assault a unit that was inside, if the transport is destroyed later in the same phase - but does RAW support that?

I am ignoring units that did not fire at all, or actual fired at the unit inside the transport in this case.

I hope that made sense. . .

Strictly looking at the raw it seems that it would be just the unit that destroyed the transport as it states "The unit that shot..." and not "Any unit that shot..."

Just to re-iterate the entire rule: "If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers."

Yep, when you take the first half of the sentence into consideration, it's setting a condition, ie the unit that destroyed the transport. So only the unit that shot AND destroyed the transport, IMO.

Glad I asked then.
I figured it was me missing something.

I never caught that before.

shrug

could you cite the language? I'm under the impression that regardless if one unit destroyed the transport or not all who fired on it may then charge the unit inside.

Unless the language clearly states, "only a unit that destroys a transport may then assault the unit which had been inside" i'm not buying it.

I am confident outside of clear language on the matter that GW was just explaining the rule in the singular out of convenience.

Caveat: I of course have no credible evidence either way on the matter b/c my bgb is not with me

Axyl wrote: rule: "If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot "it" may assault the now disembarked passengers."

Basically the question is what does the word IT refer to? The transport or the ranged attack?

If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot "the transport" may assault the now disembarked passengers. (any unit that shot at it, shot the transport)

If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot "the ranged attack" may assault the now disembarked passengers (only the unit that shot the ranged attack can assault)

Kinda funny and an awesome rules wording.
It's like GW wants us to make up our own rules. (why did I buy the BRB again?)

I stand by what I said. For a more fun, fluid, and competitive game, the "it" should be considered "the transport" IMO.


Seriously, why DID i buy the BGB? Just so I have the opportunity and privilege to opine on trivial matters i guess.

Except by the basic use of the singular (the unit that shot) as opposed to the inclusive plural (units that shot)

'The unit' is singular, therefore the definition of 'it' has to be referencing the ranged attack that destroyed the vehicle. That's RAW. Suggesting it refers to the transport also suggests you're accepting a typo/grammar error - which is RAI (and heavily at that).

I'm also of the opinion that it refers to the transport.

Thor665 I don't think it's definitive to suggest that since "unit" is singular that it implies that "it" refers to the ranged attack. The example is just singular. There are alot of singular examples in the BRB that can be applied to a plural.

It refering to the transport is not really a typo/grammar error...

As if you said the "units" and only 1 unit shot it then "units" would be a typo.

I personally would say, since the word "it" isn't defined and there is two nouns that the word "it" could be refering to, then this really doesn't have an answer per RAW.

"If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers"
Regardless of what "it" refers to "the unit that shot" is not "any unit that shot".

"If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers."

Umm, this seems pretty simple to me.

The RAW doesn't exclude other units from assaulting the now-disembarked passengers, as it doesn't say "Only the unit that shot...", the rule is rather allowing the unit that shot the transport to assault a unit that it didn't shoot at. This wording just exists to make it clear that the rule stating you can only assault the unit you shot at doesn't apply here. It isn't meant to exclude other units from assaulting the now-disembarked unit, and the language in no way excludes other units from assaulting. It clearly isn't overriding any of the other existing assault rules, which allow units to assault things they shot at, or assault anything if they didn't shoot.

Also, regardless of what you think "it" refers to, it won't change the effect of what is written, considering "the unit" can only refer to one unit. Look at the cases:

1) "If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot [the transport] may assault the now disembarked passengers."

2) "If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot [the ranged attack] may assault the now disembarked passengers."

The pedantic argument over what "it" means is irrelevant, both cases would have to refer to the same unit, the one that shot and destroyed the transport.

But if two units shot at the transport that round another unit that shot the transport is also "the unit that shot the transport".

The issue is that this rule is the only reason a model can shoot the transport and then assault the unit inside.

Any unit that did not shoot, or shot at the unit after the transport was destroyed is 100% ok.

If a unit shot a transport and DID not destroy it. . . The unit it shot at was . . . the transport. In the assault phase immediately following that shooting, the unit cannot assault anything other than the transport.

phillosmaster wrote:But if two units shot at the transport that round another unit that shot the transport is also "the unit that shot the transport".

Taken out of context that would be correct, in context it isn't. It doesn't satisfy the condition of "If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit..." because the word "the" is very specific here, it isn't "a" or "any".

Again, the rule is to allow the unit that blew up the transport to assault the unit inside, because otherwise it would not be able to given the RAW in the assault section. The language of the rule does not exclude other units that meet the criteria for assaulting a unit (having either not shot, or shot at the unit to be assaulted). What Kirsanth said is correct.

I'm not sure I agree with you guys, but I promise not to make this an endless cycle of posting the same arguement over and over again. To clarify my point is "if a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack" doesn't specify where that attack originated. If multiple units shot at the transport that round they both fullfill the second part of that statement. The rule seems ambiguous to me and could be interpreted both ways.

It would be unambiguous if they stated the unit that destroyed the transport may assault, but they don't. The only requirement is that they shot at the transport.

It's "the unit" though, not "a unit" or "any unit" or "the units" so there's really no way it could be talking about multiple units.

This is a case where the RAW cannot provide an answer to the question.

The rule only covers the case in which a single unit ("the unit") shoots and destroys a transport. That's true regardless of the antecedent of "it."

So the case where more than one unit shoots a transport is not mentioned in the rules.

The rules allow multiple units to shoot, but don't provide any way in this case to determine which unit is "the" unit that is allowed to assault. It's ambiguous.

So the answer just isn't there. You have to make a judgment call.

phillosmaster wrote:Thor665 I don't think it's definitive to suggest that since "unit" is singular that it implies that "it" refers to the ranged attack. The example is just singular. There are alot of singular examples in the BRB that can be applied to a plural.

I disagree about whether or not it's definitive due to the singular. But, perhaps you could enlighten me better by showing me some of these other singular uses when plural is also applied? I suspect, without knowing which rules you're discussing, that those instances can be taken on a case by case basis for each of multiple units. However, in the case of destroying a transport, irrespective of how many units shot at it, the way the rules work make it impossible for more then one unit to have destroyed it (besides joined HQs, but they're part of the unit they're joined with)

Flavius Infernus wrote:This is a case where the RAW cannot provide an answer to the question.

The rule only covers the case in which a single unit ("the unit") shoots and destroys a transport. That's true regardless of the antecedent of "it."

So the case where more than one unit shoots a transport is not mentioned in the rules.

The rules allow multiple units to shoot, but don't provide any way in this case to determine which unit is "the" unit that is allowed to assault. It's ambiguous.

So the answer just isn't there. You have to make a judgment call.

I would disagree here, the rules allow for "the unit that shot it may assault" this is clearly for a single unit reference because multiple units cannot destroy the same transport and this part of the rules only comes into effect once said transport is destroyed. Therefore you only reference the unit who shot 'it' (whatever it may be) once the transport is destroyed. If the rules are clear for the definition of "it", as you say, as long as we accept that "the unit" is singular...I would suggest then the rules are perfectly clear because there is no way to define "the unit" as plural short of attempting an interpretation that it's mistyped and is thus a RAI ruling.

Well I do not think you can "shoot" a ranged attack. You can "Make" a ranged attack. Shooting a ranged attack sounds more like you are shooting the other enemies bullets. I think I saw that in a movie once where the two bullets collide in mid air.

I'll agree with that, but as I said back in my first post the entirety of the 'it' is better summed up as; the ranged attack that destroyed the transport. Therefore you'd replace the 'it' in the sentence so it would read "the unit that shot the ranged attack...yadda, yadda, yadda." Which grammatically avoids your issue and is the proper way to sub out the pronoun as well.

And even if we go with 'it' referencing the transport you'd still add in the modifier from the previous part of the sentence so it would become "the unit that shot the transport and destroyed it...yadda, yadda."

You can see this is the way the sentence is structured by the use of the commas to separate out the thoughts. Note in the first sentence of the paragraph it prevents a bolter/lascannon squad from blowing up a transport and then also shooting the passengers. The new sentence then starts with However, making it connected to the previous thought.

"However the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers" is a complete thought that includes the modifier in commas that for them to do this their shot would have had to destroy the transport and also that they would only be able to do so if they are normally capable of performing an assault at that time (the second comma separated thought). This connects with the prior sentence to let us know that all of their initial shooting may only target the transport. The sentence also is clear that a unit that shot at the transport only has the right to assault passengers from that transport if 1) their shot destroyed the transport *and* 2) that they otherwise meet the criteria for assault.

The right of every unit that fired on the transport may meet criteria 2, but save for the final destroying shot fails to meet criteria 1, therefore making it so only a singular 'the unit' may do the assault.

kirsanth wrote:"If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers"
Regardless of what "it" refers to "the unit that shot" is not "any unit that shot".

I believe that any unit that meets the condition of the test can assault. The condition is the unit that shot it. It says nothing about the unit that destroyed the transport.

By going what you are saying, it would seem to imply that only one unit could ever shoot at a transport per shooting phase.

imweasel wrote:

kirsanth wrote:"If a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers"
Regardless of what "it" refers to "the unit that shot" is not "any unit that shot".

I believe that any unit that meets the condition of the test can assault. The condition is the unit that shot it. It says nothing about the unit that destroyed the transport.

By going what you are saying, it would seem to imply that only one unit could ever shoot at a transport per shooting phase.

Greetings,

I would (vaguely humbly) encourage you to read my post immediately above yours wherein I outline what conditions the sentence is allowing for assaults and also how the sentence clearly allows for multiple units to fire at a transport yet for only the one that destroyed it to assault the disembarked unit. As a quick breakdown for tl:dr types; there are two conditions to be allowed to assault disembarked passengers after shooting a transport 1. that your shot destroyed the transport and 2. that you otherwise meet the conditions for assault. This allows multiple units to shoot, but only the one who actually destroyed the transport to assault the passengers.

You can look at my above post for a more long winded explanation.

Edit - Not worth it.