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.

Point is that even if you can go to ground 2 times, your state is only that of "Gone to ground".

Now if you gained that state 2 times for 2 different reasons, what is the reason you are on the ground? Both? The first?The last?

Both. You went to ground because of X and because of Y. BOth are true and neither negates the other.

Thus you can answer the question "did I "go to ground" because of the devastators special rule?" with the affirmative.

Actually, if you are on a state at the moment you are set to that state again, you don't change state again, you retain the state.

You can only change to state if you are not on that state.

So, you change state because of the first thing that changed you to that state. Other things just have no effect.

So, even though you take the test, you don't "go to ground", you "stay on ground."

"Go to ground" is a rule. the state is a binary on or off., not "went to ground" or "still on the ground"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Go to ground" is a rule. the state is a binary on or off., not "went to ground" or "still on the ground"

Go to ground is a rule that let you change from a binary state, from off (normal) to on (gone to ground) AND THAT ONLY WAY.
If you are on state on, then the rule has no effect, since you are already on. they rule "go to ground" is the switch that change from off to on.
Following your example, turning on the lights, the woman enters the room and use the switch to turns on the lights (go to ground) later the man enters the room with the lights on, and press the switch on while on (go to ground while on ground already), who turned the lights on? (why did it go to ground?)

This is according your understanding of the rule as a binary state (which is true). You can't turn something on if it is on. Just give me an example of a binary status that while being on 1 make it turn to 1 while on 1.

If a unit goes to ground then you make it go to ground that is automatic.

Wallur - my point is you are not in the state "now on the ground". You have satisfied the conditions such that the rule "go to ground" is set to TRUE

Nothing prevents other rules frmo ALSO setting this rule to "TRUE"

YOu are then in the situation that when asked if you went to ground due to X, you can answer YES, because the rule does not limit itself to asking if you went to go gruond SOLELY because of X

You are applying a limitation that does not exist in the rules. As it does not exist in the rules, it is an invalid rules argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wallur - my point is you are not in the state "now on the ground". You have satisfied the conditions such that the rule "go to ground" is set to TRUE

Nothing prevents other rules frmo ALSO setting this rule to "TRUE"

YOu are then in the situation that when asked if you went to ground due to X, you can answer YES, because the rule does not limit itself to asking if you went to go gruond SOLELY because of X

You are applying a limitation that does not exist in the rules. As it does not exist in the rules, it is an invalid rules argument.

Have to agree with this. The rules are, as usual, badly written. I also believe the intent to be this.

there however is no such rule that an unit that has already been grounded can go to ground again.

stating such is making up a rule, the absence of a restriction does not create a permission

the closest ruling on whether or not an unit can go to ground after going to ground is pinning where a unit cannot further test for pinning (being made to go to ground for an attack) if it is already pinned. we are not told the unit automatically fails its pinning roll, or counts as being pinned again but that it does not test.

if the unit has already gone to ground it did not go to ground from a different special rule. so by the RAW the assault rule will never work if the unit opts to go to ground as it does not ask the unit to be gone to ground, but to have gone to ground from the other rule. if the unit has already gone to ground, the other rule cannot make it go to ground. it is already there and there is no change in its state from that rule, so it absolutely did not go to ground from that rule. ever.