axeman1n wrote:Um... what I said is exactly how the rule is used. Once the transport is destroyed, the unit inside is assaultable by any unit can did not shoot, did shoot at the transport, or did shoot at the unit.
SO for the purposes of assault, the unit inside and the transport are the same, after the transport is destroyed. The rule does not require the shooter to have destroyed the transport in order to be eligible to assault the unit it was carrying.
GW does not always pluralize properly. Unit that shot the transport is for any unit that shot the transport. If the transport is destroyed, the unit can be assaulted by the unit that shot it. Every unit that shot at the transport without destroying it qualifies.
If they had said, the unit that destroyed the transport may assault the unit in the transport, then it would mean that.
"if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a
ranged attack, the unit that shot
it may assault the now disembarked passengers"
Two valid interpretations;
The "it" after the comma is referring to the ranged attack that destroyed the transport. Or the "it" is referring to the transport, in which case it is still limited to the one unit by "a ranged attack" and "the unit".
Taking the scentance to read "If a transport is destroyed during the shooting phase, every unit which has shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers." Is a far cry for what is clear 'ranged attack - unit which shot - permission to assault target other than one it shot at'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Requia wrote:It's just as dangerous ground to make assumptions based on dubious rules of grammar.
If the writing of the rule is unclear, using RAW to determine how the rule works is a bad idea (the way the rule is written is the entire problem after all). It makes very little sense to have the rule be that only the unit that destroyed it may assault, it makes even less sense to have the rule work that way and not be explicit.
The most reasonable assumption is that the rule was written without considering the idea that more than one unit would be shooting at the transport, and that in the absence of explicit wording to the contrary, what applies to one unit also applies to a second unit that fulfills all the written requirements to use the rule.
???
"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." Page 67 They're fairly explicit that this rule is written in the context of a single unit from the get go.
What doesn't make sense to me is how one can pass judgement on the "sense" of a rule - when one didn't write it. Another thing that doesn't make sense is to force an 'multiple unit interpretation' when all shooting is done singularly, and is talked about from the perspective of 'the unit'. What does make sense is your last scentence which applies perfectly to the situation at hand, so I ask you; How can a second unit fufill the requierment of being the origin of the ranged attack which destroyed the transport? "if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it" That one there.
