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.

Thought I'd see what you guys thought about this little nugget that came up in a game last night.

Enemy's Razorback is the target. 1 Unit of terminators with cyclones is 3 inches away. Another unit of terminators with AC's is 18 inches away.

Termy unit one shoots at the Razorback with the cyclones and stuns, shakes it. Termy unit two then shoots at the Razorback - pinning and exploding it.

Can Termy unit one still assault the unit in the Razorback?

My thought was YES - as the rules state that you can assault what was in a transport that was destroyed. The third party ruling on it was that only the unit that destroyed the transport could assault the unit inside.

Thoughts?

My thought is to use the Search function.

Short answer; no.

The rule says that if the transport is destroyed, either wrecked or explodes, the unit that shot is may assault the passengers. {emphasis mine}
This has been debated over and over with 2 distinct sides.
Side 1 - Only the unit that shot and destroyed the transport may assault the passengers, no other unit that shot at the transport may do so because you can only assault a unit you shot at, which was the transport.
Side 2 - Any unit that shot at the transport may assault the passegers from the transport if the transport is shot at and wrecked.

If you did a poll on this you might find it to be evenly split, or leaning one way or another.
So the answer is, there is no definite answer by RAW.
FWIW, I personally play it that only the unit that shot at and destroyed the transport may assault the passengers since that is allowed by rule. Other units that shot at the transport but failed to destroy it could only assault the transport, it being the unit they shot at, but since it (the transport) is now destroyed, there is nothing they can assault.

It a rather complicated and convoluted issue, and as I said, there is no clear 'one way or the other' answer.
Only ironclad answer is houserule or dice off.

No, there IS a distinct RAW answer: THE unit that shot and destroyed it may assault it. Not ANY unit.

No, you may not assault it. Shoot the unit furhter away first.

I think this rule would have been more evenly split a long time ago but now I wouldn't be so sure.

The rule allowing The unit that caused the destroyed result on the transport to assault the troops inside is already an exception to an important general rule stating that NO unit may fire at one target and assault another and should be taken no further than what is exactly stated.

If this was an aged codex problem then some leniency would be fine but its not. The two above posters here are right in that the BRB cleary says that the singular firing unit may assault and thats that.

I was laying a bit of a devil's advocate.
Where it says "The" unit isn't highlighted, underlined, etc.
GW could have made it clearer either way but saying "Only the unit that shot..." or "Any unit that shot..." but they didn't.
I have always played it that only the unit that shot at and destroyed the transport can assult the passengers.
So, nosferatu, I agree with you 100%, but there were others that thought differently.
And in that discussion, I always advocated that same thing, only the unit that shot.
But I also advocated that Shrike could infiltrate with his unit and that that Duke Sliscus was just a regular IC if there were no Kablaite in the Dark Eldar force!

By RAW any unit that shot at the transport can assault.

It says 'the unit that shot it' not "the unit that shot and destroyed it."

Indeed TW the rule could have been much more clear here as it should probably say the unit that caused the destroyed result.

Now re-reading this I can understand why someone could argue that if a unit shot at the transport then they could assault the unit inside as it does make sense.

It just seems closer to RAW that in the context of the sentence, which describes the vehicle being destroyed and the unit that shot it being able to assault, that it is only giving that exception to the unit that got the destroyed result. I don't think by RAW you could extend that to any unit that shot it and just say thats RAW easily

Afrikan Blonde, please post actual reasoning besides just saying something is RAW without any reasons as to why

Well, here we go again. So, by the numbers.
1 - "...a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit it shot at..." BRB page 33.
2 - "...if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..." BRB page 67

I have unit A and unit B.
Unit A fires at a transport with embarked passengers. All it does is immobliized the transport.
Did that shooting attack destroy the transport? No so the first condition of #2 has not been satisfied. Unit A can only assault the transport, since that is the unit is shot at.
Unit B now fires at the transport, destroying it. It is a wreck so the passengers must disembark.
All the conditions of #2 have been met. The transport is destroyed, the passengers have disembarked, and unit B was the one that shot at the transport and destroyed it by a ranged attack. Unit B may now assault the disembarked passengers (if it would be allowed to assult normally).
Unit A is out of luck. The unit it shot at, the transport, is the only unit it could have assaulted, but that transort unit is now destroyed so unit A has nothing to assault this phase.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:By RAW any unit that shot at the transport can assault.

Wrong. Did they destroy it? No? then they cannot assault it as they have not fulfilled the critera given under the destroyed transports rule.

Seriously, have a look at the tenets and maybe present an arugment next time.

time wizard wrote:Well, here we go again. So, by the numbers.
1 - "...a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit it shot at..." BRB page 33.
2 - "...if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..." BRB page 67

I have unit A and unit B.
Unit A fires at a transport with embarked passengers. All it does is immobliized the transport.
Did that shooting attack destroy the transport? No so the first condition of #2 has not been satisfied. Unit A can only assault the transport, since that is the unit is shot at.
Unit B now fires at the transport, destroying it. It is a wreck so the passengers must disembark.
All the conditions of #2 have been met. The transport is destroyed, the passengers have disembarked, and unit B was the one that shot at the transport and destroyed it by a ranged attack. Unit B may now assault the disembarked passengers (if it would be allowed to assult normally).
Unit A is out of luck. The unit it shot at, the transport, is the only unit it could have assaulted, but that transort unit is now destroyed so unit A has nothing to assault this phase.

The condition of number two is simply that it is destroyed by a ranged attack. It says nothing about whether the assaulting unit shot it successfully or not. So the first condition was fulfilled when unit B shot at it. The question resolves entirely around the meaning of 'the unit that shot it'

Regardless, I find this whole argument freaking ridiculous, why is this not in any of the FAQs instead of various stuff that's meant to either gimp or power up a given faction? This is exactly the kind of thing GW needs to address, given how vague the rules are in that paragraph.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:By RAW any unit that shot at the transport can assault.

By RAW, the unit that shot the transport can assault the disembarked passengers. You have to put that back in the context of the full rules entry, in which case 'the unit' is the unit that destroyed the transport, since that's what the rule is talking about.

time wizard wrote:Well, here we go again. So, by the numbers.
1 - "...a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit it shot at..." BRB page 33.
2 - "...if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..." BRB page 67

I have unit A and unit B.
Unit A fires at a transport with embarked passengers. All it does is immobliized the transport.
Did that shooting attack destroy the transport? No so the first condition of #2 has not been satisfied. Unit A can only assault the transport, since that is the unit is shot at.
Unit B now fires at the transport, destroying it. It is a wreck so the passengers must disembark.
All the conditions of #2 have been met. The transport is destroyed, the passengers have disembarked, and unit B was the one that shot at the transport and destroyed it by a ranged attack. Unit B may now assault the disembarked passengers (if it would be allowed to assult normally).
Unit A is out of luck. The unit it shot at, the transport, is the only unit it could have assaulted, but that transort unit is now destroyed so unit A has nothing to assault this phase.

The flaw that I see in this argument is that it is still the shooting phase (shown by the second unit being capable of shooting). Wouldn't target viability be determined at the beginning of Assault Phase, and if the question is applied at that time then yes, unit A does meet the criteria.

MudgeBlack wrote: The flaw that I see in this argument is that it is still the shooting phase (shown by the second unit being capable of shooting). Wouldn't target viability be determined at the beginning of Assault Phase, and if the question is applied at that time then yes, unit A does meet the criteria.

Suppose unit A fires at a vehicle. Unit A is also 3" away from another enemy unit C.
Unit A damages the vehicle.
Another unit destroys the vehicle.
Can unit A now assault the other enemy unit C?
No, because unit A can only assault the unit it fired at in the shooting phase, which was the vehicle.

But if unit A shoots at a transport with a unit embarked in the Shooting phase and destroys the transport and the unit disembarks, then unit A is allowed to assault the now disembarked passengers.
This is an exception to only being allowed to assault a unit that you shot at.

Requia wrote:It says 'the unit that shot it' not "the unit that shot and destroyed it."

It says; "The unit that shot it", not "The unit that shot at it."


Not disagreeing as such, but rather pointing out an alternative way of interpreting the wording. As a rule, I believe, we should interpret the rules from the wording we are given, not the wording that was omitted.

Time - except unit A did NOT destroy the vehicle, therefore they cannot assault the now disembarked passengers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Time - except unit A did NOT destroy the vehicle, therefore they cannot assault the now disembarked passengers.

I gave 2 different examples, in the second I said;

"But if unit A shoots at a transport with a unit embarked in the Shooting phase and destroys the transport and the unit disembarks, then unit A is allowed to assault the now disembarked passengers.
This is an exception to only being allowed to assault a unit that you shot at."

Are we confusing each other here?

Gah, sorry, brain fart....

Yep, we're agreeing on this

MudgeBlack wrote:The flaw that I see in this argument is that it is still the shooting phase (shown by the second unit being capable of shooting). Wouldn't target viability be determined at the beginning of Assault Phase, and if the question is applied at that time then yes, unit A does meet the criteria.

I'd like to quote Mudge here because he's absolutely right about the meaning of this post. The game doesn't care, at all, about what is going to happen. All it cares about is what has happened and what is happening.

By the time the Assault Phase has started, the condition required to assault the occupants have been fulfilled (the vehicle has been destroyed).

At that point, we should check the second condition. Was Unit A "the unit" that shot at the transport. Well, now the question gets into grammar usuage (something you never want to happen in any game, especially GW) because "the" is a definite article, used to point out a specific noun that the reader is aware of. "The unit" implies it to be singular, so only one unit. However, it's not the definite article's responsibility to limit the number of nouns that it is talking about. "The car over there" when there are two cars doesn't really tell us anything. If, however, during a conversation you were talking about a red car, and one car "over there" was red and another green, it would be clear.

While I think an FAQ should be done (and I don't understand why people have a problem with others proposing FAQs considering the trash they already waste putting in there) I will have to agree with TW's final answer (but again, not with his reasoning). Only the unit that led to the destruction will be able to assault.

I would not be surprised if an FAQ reversed it though, for fluff reasons or for the fact that the rule says "shot" and not "destroyed". But this is how I would rule it for now.

Short answer is no:

1.) A unit that shot at the transport and popped it can assault the passengers.
2.) A unit that shot at the transport and failed to pop it cannot.
3.) And of course if after the transport was popped any unit that shot at the passengers can assault as norm.

The only time one is given permission to assault a unit one did not shoot at is on page 67 - "However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers" - That is the be all and end all, every other relevent piece of rule related to assault indicates that if a unit declared another as the target of it's shooting, that will be the only unit they are permitted to assult.

Despite claims that 'the' can include more than one. . .the previous posters are correct.
Asserting that models that were not part of 'the' unit that destroyed the unit are part of 'the' unit are simply misguided and incorrect.

ChrisCP wrote:The only time one is given permission to assault a unit one did not shoot at is on page 67 - "However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers" - That is the be all and end all, every other relevent piece of rule related to assault indicates that if a unit declared another as the target of it's shooting, that will be the only unit they are permitted to assult.

Ok, so does this mean that ANY unit that shot it (the transport) may assault (the passengers), or only the unit that destroyed it.
I would take it to mean that any unit that shot the transport, but that seems to go against the general consensus. I guess I look at it as the transport and passengers are one 'group' and that group can be fired on then assaulted by any units that did not fire on another unit or group from the (now) destroyed transport/passenger group.
Then again that is applying logic to a GW game which is a big NO NO.....

For the purpose of assault, the unit and it's transport are the same after the transport is destroyed. If you fired on a unit in the shooting phase, you are free to assault it, even if you caused no wounds. In fact, you may not assault any other unit unless you also assault that one.

axeman1n wrote:For the purpose of assault, the unit and it's transport are the same after the transport is destroyed.

That is absolutely untrue.

A unit and it's transport are never, for any purposes, considered to be the same. See Multiple Unit Choices on page 92, as well as the definition of Unit on page 3, and the examples given on pages 4 and 5.

There is a specific rule on page 67 allowing a unit which shoots and blows up a transport to assault the passengers instead of the unit they shot. But this is an exception to the rule, and does not in any way equate or conflate two different units as being one.

MudgeBlack wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:The only time one is given permission to assault a unit one did not shoot at is on page 67 - "However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers" - That is the be all and end all, every other relevent piece of rule related to assault indicates that if a unit declared another as the target of it's shooting, that will be the only unit they are permitted to assult.

Ok, so does this mean that ANY unit that shot it (the transport) may assault (the passengers), or only the unit that destroyed it.
I would take it to mean that any unit that shot the transport, but that seems to go against the general consensus. I guess I look at it as the transport and passengers are one 'group' and that group can be fired on then assaulted by any units that did not fire on another unit or group from the (now) destroyed transport/passenger group.
Then again that is applying logic to a GW game which is a big NO NO.....

Are you the unit, that shot the ranged attack, that destroyed the transport?
That's effectively the question that this rule is asking of the player. If one can't answer yes to this question then one my not assault the now disembarked passengers - there really isn't any wriggle room

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.

axeman1n wrote:If the transport is destroyed, the unit can be assaulted by the unit that shot it.

The thing is, within the context of that statement 'the unit that shot it' is the unit that fired the shot that destroyed the transport, not just any unit that shot at it, because the transport being destroyed is the subject of the statement.

Your interpretation seems to be hinging on the idea that 'the unit' is a typo, which is wandering into dangerous ground without any real good reason.

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.