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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.