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.

The argument I laid out in the first post of the thread shows what prevents him from assaulting.

The thread is about whether that argument is correct or not.

Allowed to assault, and who they may assault are different rules. The rule on blowing up transports changes the who they may assault (granting them permission to assault a unit they technically didnt shoot) this rule does nothing to the "are they allowed to assault" This is determined by whether they fired a heavy weapon, did they run/do they have the fleet ability, or did they generally do anything that would not allow them to assault. Once you determin that they can assault, then they pick a target, that target may be restricted based on whether or not they fired at anything in the shooting phase (must assault the unit they fired at) but the rule on blowing up trasports gives them permission to assault the disembarked passengers. then you check range, if you are within your assault range then you may charge, if not you do not move and can not engage. If you break it down into those three parts the rule, IMO, becomes clear.

Kilkrazy wrote:The argument I laid out in the first post of the thread shows what prevents him from assaulting.

The thread is about whether that argument is correct or not.

The rule regarding passengers and transports on page 67 is an exception only to the prohibition on assaulting a different unit from the one you shot at (from page 33).

"...if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules" means that if the unit is presently subject to a restriction which prevents it from assaulting at all, the exception on page 67 doesn't override such an inability. Ie: the bulleted list on the right side of page 33.

VoxDei wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The assault is NOT a go. The rule is clear as it uses "THE" unit that destroyed it may now assault the passengers.

There is only one "the" unit that destroyed that vehicle; only THEY have permission to assault.

That's not what the rule says. It says the unit that shot it. To me they are clearly avoiding the wording that would imply the unit that destroyed it. No were does it say anything about the unit that destroyed it. Just that the vehicle was destroyed by ranged fire (again clearly vague wording).

Except you have ignored the first part of the rule, which talks about THE unit that destroyed the vehicle. This same "the unit" is then given permission to assault the contents. So anyone who shot the vehicle and did NOT destroy it may NOT assault the contents, as they are not "the unit" that destroyed the vehicle.

don_mondo wrote:

VoxDei wrote:

That's not what the rule says. It says the unit that shot it. To me they are clearly avoiding the wording that would imply the unit that destroyed it. No were does it say anything about the unit that destroyed it. Just that the vehicle was destroyed by ranged fire (again clearly vague wording).

Nope, it says the unit that shot it and destroyed it. That means only the unit that destroyed it has permission to assault the now disembarked passengers.

I don't mean to be rude but do you have the English version of the BRB? I know some of the other languages have slightly different working in them which can make this a little awkward. I have the english version of the BRB cw 2008 and i'm reading from pg 67 right now right above the box 'dedicated transports'. It says '...the unit that shot it may now assault...' It definatly does not say the unit that shot and destroyed it. If it said that it would not even be a discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Except you have ignored the first part of the rule, which talks about THE unit that destroyed the vehicle. This same "the unit" is then given permission to assault the contents. So anyone who shot the vehicle and did NOT destroy it may NOT assault the contents, as they are not "the unit" that destroyed the vehicle.

Not really. The sentence starts with the work 'However' which seems to imply a separation from previous statements. It is improper grammar to use the word as such at the beginning of the sentence but in this context it seems to be doing that.

VoxDei wrote:I don't mean to be rude but do you have the English version of the BRB?

The part you are missing is prior . . . "if a transport is destroyed"

VoxDei wrote:
I don't mean to be rude but do you have the English version of the BRB? I know some of the other languages have slightly different working in them which can make this a little awkward. I have the english version of the BRB cw 2008 and i'm reading from pg 67 right now right above the box 'dedicated transports'. It says '...the unit that shot it may now assault...' It definatly does not say the unit that shot and destroyed it. If it said that it would not even be a discussion.

No offense taken. But yes, I have the English version, and as has been pointed out a couple of times already, you need to read the entire sentence. Here it is:

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.

Break it down. First part, IF A TRANSPORT IS DESTROYED. Second part THE UNIT that shot it (ie the unit that inflicted the destroyed result with a shooting attack) may now assault........

So, since it does indeed say that, end of discussion?

No...because it doesn't say the transport is destroyed by the unit. It specifically says the transport is destroyed by A ranged attack. Implying it does not have to be the unit that is assaulting. If they wanted to restrict it to the unit they could have said 'if the transport is destroyed by the unit.' Or they could have said 'The unit that destroyed it.' Again they specifically (supposition on my part off course) avoided any relationship from the destroying unit and the assaulting unit. In this sentence there is no relationship stated between the assaulting unit and the destroying unit. You may feel there is a relationship implied (i feel is was specifically avoided) but there is non stated at all.

VoxDei wrote:No...because it doesn't say the transport is destroyed by the unit. It specifically says the transport is destroyed by A ranged attack. Implying it does not have to be the unit that is assaulting. If they wanted to restrict it to the unit they could have said 'if the transport is destroyed by the unit.' Or they could have said 'The unit that destroyed it.' Again they specifically (supposition on my part off course) avoided any relationship from the destroying unit and the assaulting unit. In this sentence there is no relationship stated between the assaulting unit and the destroying unit. You may feel there is a relationship implied (i feel is was specifically avoided) but there is non stated at all.

You do know , and . are not the same thing and how they are used in the English language right? Becouse it dosen't seem like it. The , mean all things must apply to the unit assualting. It is how things are writing in English.

Vox - it is end of discussion, as "the unit that shot it" is singular, and linked to the first part.

ONLY the unit that shot it AND destroyed it fulfils the criteria listed in the sentence.