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.

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.