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.

Hey folks,

At the local club tournament we ran into a small problem.
An elder player used his avatar to shoot at a rhino, he missed.
He then shot the rhino with his war walkers and wrecked it.
The unit inside the rhino now had to disembark.

The question is, is the Avatar now able to assault the disembarked unit? According to the Eldar player he was, as the avatar shot the rhino. According to the marine player he wasn't because, even though the Avatar shot the rhino, he wasn't the one that destroyed it and therefore isnt allowed to charge the disembarking unit, he would've only been able to do so if he had been the one that had shot it to pieces.

What are your oppinions on this? Who was right?

This is a pretty hotly debated grey area in the rules.

Basically, there's a camp that says that because the rule says "the unit that shot it" means that only the unit that actually destroys the vehicle can assault the passengers.

There's another camp that places the emphasis differently as "the unit that shot it" to mean that any unit that shot at the vehicle may assault the passengers.

I may be missing some of the nuances, but that's basically the crux of the matter.

I'm more in the camp of only allowing the unit that actually destroyed the vehicle to assault myself.

Definatly a hotly debated topic but the way it's played where I live is only the unit that destroyed the vehicle may assault the unit.

I would say yes, as long as the Avatar is in the correct circumstances to assault, then he may assault.

We play no - singular makes it seem clear to us.

ymmv

When playing folks that are not regulars with us, we discuss this before the game, like many other issues.

I would sat yes and no, but this is just an opinion base on how I have seen the rules interpreted.
Yes: The Rhino was a Dedicated Transport bought by the Squad it counts as part of the squad
No: If it was a lets say a Land Raider bought as a Heavy Support, with a TAC Squad in it, they are two separate units

As for my personal opinion that has nothing to do with RAW, I would not see a problem with it.

Anpu, you are off-base for a couple of reasons.

Even a dedicated transport is a completely separate unit from the squad it is carrying.

There is a specific exception to the normal rules for assaulting units you shot at written into the rules for transports, and it applies to all transports, regardless of whether they are dedicated or not.

The answer is 100%, unequivocally "No".

Gwar,
To which of the 2 players' views is the answer an unequivocally no?
Could you explain why? It will make it easier for me to make a point if i can put anything into the argument other then just no

Gwar! wrote:The answer is 100%, unequivocally "No".

Really? Does "shoot" now somehow mean "destroy?"

I really fail to see why so many people want to play so that only the unit that actually killed the transport can assault. If a unit shoots at a retinue and fails to do damage, then another unit kills off the retinue, are you saying that the original unit could not assault the independent character? You're also creating illogical issues with kill stealing. Tactically, it makes no difference if unit A or unit B destroys vehicle C, but you're creating a significant difference with this interpretation.

thebetter1 wrote:Really? Does "shoot" now somehow mean "destroy?"

Perhaps you should read the whole rule, especially as it is a rule about assaulting the disembarked passengers from a transport you destroyed.

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Really? Does "shoot" now somehow mean "destroy?"

Perhaps you should read the whole rule, especially as it is a rule about assaulting the disembarked passengers from a transport you destroyed.

The fact that you are trying to assault the passengers clearly means that you did destroy the transport. The rule does not say that the unit that destroyed the transport is the only unit it refers to.

thebetter1 wrote:The fact that you are trying to assault the passengers clearly means that you did destroy the transport. The rule does not say that the unit that destroyed the transport is the only unit it refers to.

You do realise that the Transport and passengers are different units right?

Willydstyle summed up the two arguments reasonably well.

I personally think the first is the 'correct' one. The second requires a rather awkward interpretation... Or rather, while I can see how people can read it that way, it's an awkward use of the language.

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:The fact that you are trying to assault the passengers clearly means that you did destroy the transport. The rule does not say that the unit that destroyed the transport is the only unit it refers to.

You do realise that the Transport and passengers are different units right?

If you're going to make me pull out my rulebook...

"if a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers" (BRB, 67).

Notice that it never points out that the unit that destroyed the vehicle is the only one that may assault the passengers.

Nowhere in my interpretation did I say that the unit and the transport are the same unit, so I have no idea why you brought this up.

insaniak wrote:Willydstyle summed up the two arguments reasonably well.

I personally think the first is the 'correct' one. The second requires a rather awkward interpretation... Or rather, while I can see how people can read it that way, it's an awkward use of the language.

I really don't see what's so awkward about treating the word "shoot" as the word "shoot" rather than as the word "destroy."

Your interpretation has a flaw in that it does not say why the unit that destroyed the transport is the one that is allowed to shoot, rather than the one that did not destroy it. Your whole argument is based on how the rule is singular. I could easily use your interpretation to say that only the unit that did not destroy the transport could assault, but this doesn't make any sense. Therefore, neither does your interpretation.

This debate always makes me laugh.

Grammar is not as flexible as people interpretations.

thebetter1 wrote:I really don't see what's so awkward about treating the word "shoot" as the word "shoot" rather than as the word "destroy."

I'm not questioning the use of the word 'shoot'

I'm saying that the fact that the rule refers to 'the unit' rather than 'any unit' in the context of the sentence as a whole leans more towards it meaning the unit that actually destroyed the vehicle.

Using 'the' instead of 'any' certainly can still be taken to fit your interpretation. But it's awkward English.


The rule is referring to the vehicle being destroyed. Within that context, 'the' unit is the unit that destroyed the vehicle. It uses the word 'shoot' because for this scenario to be possible, the vehicle would have been destroyed in by shooting.

Your whole argument is based on how the rule is singular.

Indeed it is. We'll have to agree to disagree that this is a bad thing.

Because your argument is based on the rule only referencing one unit, it is flawed, as I stated above. You automatically assume that this one unit must be the one that destroyed the tank just because you want it to be that way. Nowhere in the rule does it even begin to suggest which of the two units it refers to.

I could apply your interpretation to say that the unit that did not destroy the transport is the only one that can assault the occupants. Does this match your interpretation? Yes. Does it make sense? No. Therefore, does your argument make sense? No, unless you think it makes sense that only the unit that did not destroy the transport can assault the occupants.

thebetter1 wrote: You automatically assume that this one unit must be the one that destroyed the tank just because you want it to be that way.

It's not a question of which way I want it to work. I don't much care either way.

I assume that it's referring to the unit that destroyed the vehicle because, to me, that's the way the sentence reads. The opposite interpretation (in my opinion) is awkward, given the langauge actually used.

Again, nothing to do with how I want the rule to work. Just the way I read it.

I could apply your interpretation to say that the unit that did not destroy the transport is the only one that can assault the occupants. Does this match your interpretation? Yes.

How?

Okay, if I have to go through this for a third time, I will.

You are saying that the rule only applies to one unit. You have not shown any rule suggesting that this one unit must be the one that destroyed it; you are just assuming that this is the case because you believe it reads that way. By your one unit interpretation, this one unit could be the one that did not destroy the transport. Therefore, only that unit would be eligible to assault.

You have stated that this is an awkward interpretation, yet it is based entirely on your own interpretation, which makes it awkward.

I really hope I don't have to keep repeating myself like this.

thebetter1 wrote:Okay, if I have to go through this for a third time, I will.

Still wrong, but anyway...

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Okay, if I have to go through this for a third time, I will.

Still wrong, but anyway...

Yes, because anything Gwar says is obviously true, especially if he doesn't attempt to explain it at all.

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Okay, if I have to go through this for a third time, I will.

Still wrong, but anyway...

Yes, because anything Gwar says is obviously true, especially if he doesn't attempt to explain it at all.

Because I already have in the multitude of threads before this one and the fact that others have already explained it in excruciating detail in this one.

Really now? Have you actually addressed my points, or were you just defeating the noobish "I don't like that interpretation" arguments?

thebetter1 wrote:You are saying that the rule only applies to one unit.

No, I'm saying that in my opinion, the interpretation that best fits the rule as written is that the rule applies only to the unit that destroyed the vehicle.

You have not shown any rule suggesting that this one unit must be the one that destroyed it; you are just assuming that this is the case because you believe it reads that way.

That's what I've been saying from the start, yes.

By your one unit interpretation, this one unit could be the one that did not destroy the transport.

No, it couldn't, because that wouldn't make any sense in the context of the sentence as written.

You have stated that this is an awkward interpretation, yet it is based entirely on your own interpretation, which makes it awkward.

I actually stated that the other interpretation (ie: the one that says that 'the unit' actually means 'any unit') is an awkward interpretation.

Note that I'm not saying that interpretation is wrong. Just that I don't believe it to be the best interpretation.

I really hope I don't have to keep repeating myself like this.

Snide remarks like this add nothing to the conversation and are verging on flamebait. Don't make me put on my mod hat. I'd feel obliged to also put on pants, and that's just darned inconvenient.

I don't think it's a great rule, and "the" should probably be replaced with "any", and you may choose to play that way.

However, as written, only the unit that fired the ranged attack that destroyed the transport may assault the passengers.

(Plus any units that did not fire at all in the Shooting Phase of course).

Gwar doesn't have to address your points, others (Insaniak) have already done so. To get your interpretation, the sentence has to be distorted and abused. It refers to the unit, singular, as in the one that fired the shot that destroyed the transport. That's really all there is to it. Continuing to repeat a false premise will not somehow miraculously make it right. But feel free to ignore grammar and all that. Have a nice day.

Slinky wrote:I don't think it's a great rule, and "the" should probably be replaced with "any", and you may choose to play that way.

However, as written, only the unit that fired the ranged attack that destroyed the transport may assault the passengers.

(Plus any units that did not fire at all in the Shooting Phase of course).

Statements defining RAW really don't help during a debate on that very rule.

I'm still waiting for someone to show how the "one unit" must be the one that destroyed the vehicle. Nobody has shown a real link; it has just been everybody's opinion.

thebetter1 wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to show how the "one unit" must be the one that destroyed the vehicle. Nobody has shown a real link; it has just been everybody's opinion.

Hows this for a link:

ITS A RULE ABOUT ASSAULTING A UNIT THAT DISEMBARKED FROM A TRANSPORT WITH THE UNIT THAT DESTROYED THE TRANSPORT!

thebetter1 wrote:

Slinky wrote:I don't think it's a great rule, and "the" should probably be replaced with "any", and you may choose to play that way.

However, as written, only the unit that fired the ranged attack that destroyed the transport may assault the passengers.

(Plus any units that did not fire at all in the Shooting Phase of course).

Statements defining RAW really don't help during a debate on that very rule.

I'm still waiting for someone to show how the "one unit" must be the one that destroyed the vehicle. Nobody has shown a real link; it has just been everybody's opinion.

We don't need a link, all we need is the rulebook..........................