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.

Im a fantasy guy, and just branched into 40k, so I have only played a couple of games. Last game, I blew up my opponents rhino with shooting, and I wanted to assault the squad inside with the same squad I had used to blow it up, he informed me that I could not, because you can only assault the specidic unit you shot at. He is usualy pretty sound with rules, so I trusted him. Was he correct?. I searched my rulebook in the assault section, and this situation did not seem to be what it described as a "disalowed assault" or whatever.

He use to be correct. However in 5th edition they added a cavaet that allowed a unit to assualt whatever pops the transport they shot.

He was not correct, you are specifically allowed to assault the disembarked contents of a transport with the squad that destroyed the transport.

I KNEW IT! THAT FIEND!. ehem I mean, thanks for the response. Where might I find this in the rulebook to support myself in the comming debate?

Pg 67 on the right hand column beneath the Destroyed - explodes! result.

p. 67 in the paragraph starting with Note:
"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."


Keep in mind (as this is often misplayed) only the unit that succeeded in destroying the transport may assault the passengers. A unit that fired on the transport earlier in the turn and did not destroy it can NOT assault the passengers.

Actually, just reading that rule, it seems that any unit that shot at the transport can assault it. This is, of course, unless the 'it' refers to the shot that popped the transport.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Actually, just reading that rule, it seems that any unit that shot at the transport can assault it. This is, of course, unless the 'it' refers to the shot that popped the transport.

This has been discussed to death in the past. When you read the rule as a whole 'the unit that shot it' is referring to the unit that fired the shot that destroyed the vehicle, not just any unit that shot at it.

Insaniak is right, especially since the phrase 'the unit that shot it' is entirely singular. If it was units that would be a whole other thing but as it is now only the the unit firing the killing shot is allowed.

insaniak wrote:

cgmckenzie wrote:Actually, just reading that rule, it seems that any unit that shot at the transport can assault it. This is, of course, unless the 'it' refers to the shot that popped the transport.

This has been discussed to death in the past. When you read the rule as a whole 'the unit that shot it' is referring to the unit that fired the shot that destroyed the vehicle, not just any unit that shot at it.

This.

The "it" refers to the ranged attack - otherwise, it would have been worded as "at it", if it was referring to the vehicle.

this is very true and for good reason


a equals squad 1
b=2
c=3 V=transport

a is armed with assault weapons,ie bolt pistols.
b is death company with bolters
c are terms with 2 cyclones.
v is rhino
a is in base combat with rhino after immobilizing it in assault last turn.it failed repair
b are 3"away.
c are 2" away
A nd B fire for no reason.
c some how fail to affect tis front armour with missiles
squad d,a dev sqaud,fires 4 lascannons into rhino rear,exploding it.
the 3 squads are now able to assault the poor 5 scouts inside


edit:this is why all the squads that fired cannot assault in real games.the vital scouts are the only unit left to xcapture objectives.or are so measly the WILL LOSE THIS FIGHT.any one who says they win are drunk,stoned,sniffing glue and high

No, they cannot. See previous posts for the real rules.

I recently lost a $20 bet due to this question. Never spotted that little exception.

don_mondo wrote:No, they cannot. See previous posts for the real rules.

That's actually what he was trying to say... H ewas giving a scenario to show why you can't do it.

don_mondo wrote:No, they cannot. See previous posts for the real rules.

that was an example to show why they can't all assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disarray wrote:I recently lost a $20 bet due to this question. Never spotted that little exception.

the exception i gave on pg 34?

OK... so expanding upon this:

My long fangs destroy a transport, can another squad shoot at the newly emerged unit this turn? Or must they wait an entire turn to shoot the emerging unit?

no they can shoot as long as they didnt already declare shooting against the two targets,other squads can fire as normal

btw-can long fangs assault either target if there in range?

why couldn't a new unit shot and or assault the popped unit? Unless I'm reading the rules wrong (and I sometime do) there is no need to declare all shots before rolling a unit... that popped unit is a legitimate shooting and assaulting target... right?

shooting yes
the thread is about assaulting the squad if you shot the transport but didnt destroy it with the shots

if you havent shot yet and/or have run+fleet then yes.likewise if you use devs to lascannon a rhino,then terrms shoot the squad,the terms can assault as normal

Okay, here's a summary.

You have two squads (A and B). Your opponent has a transport with a squad inside.

All normal restrictions apply to launching an assault (you can't have fired heavy or rapid fire weapon, ran without fleet, etc).

Scenario 1:
Squad A fires at an enemy transport and destroys it. Squad B hasn't shot yet.
Squad A is allowed to assault the enemy unit. Squad B is allowed to shoot and/or assault the enemy unit.

Scenario 2:
Squad A fires at an enemy transport and fails to destroy it. Then, Squad B fires at an enemy transport and destroys it.
Squad A cannot assault anything. Squad B is allowed to assault the enemy unit.

Scenario 3:
Squad A fires at an enemy transport and fails to destroy it. Then, Squad B fires at an enemy transport and fails to destroy it.
Squad A can assault the enemy transport. Squad B can assault the enemy transport.

Scenario 2 is completely use of the R word as a pejorative is not permitted on Dakka in every last prejudicial use of that word.
Granted its never come up for me (or I've probably just let it go if it did) but that makes it no less of a "Rules says so" bullcrap.

Grakmar is entirely correct his scenarios.

If you think scenario 2 is uncommon or being a rules lawyer then you've led a very sheltered 40K life.

Is it uncommon? No.
Is it being a douche? Yes.

You're telling me that 2 units who've opened fired on the same transport may not both assault the goodies inside? No cool man.
I don't think you would make such a rule change (now allowing units to assault food inside boxes) but only allow one unit to assault.
Game balance? Maybe. Reasonability? Stupid.

IMO, these are one of those "Do I want to have a fun 40k game or must I WAAC and cling on to this rule without compromise"

Honestly if you pulled that on me (now that I'm aware of this rule scenario), I'd be like sure w/e. Personally though, I wouldn't reinforce this rule on other people.

Hmmm

terranarc wrote:Is it uncommon? No.
Is it being a douche? Yes.

You're telling me that 2 units who've opened fired on the same transport may not both assault the goodies inside? No cool man.
I don't think you would make such a rule change (now allowing units to assault food inside boxes) but only allow one unit to assault.
Game balance? Maybe. Reasonability? Stupid.

IMO, these are one of those "Do I want to have a fun 40k game or must I WAAC and cling on to this rule without compromise"

Honestly if you pulled that on me (now that I'm aware of this rule scenario), I'd be like sure w/e. Personally though, I wouldn't reinforce this rule on other people.

It's no more unrealistic or douchy than insisting that your missile launcher in a squad has to shoot at the same target as the bolters, and the bolters can't wait until after the meltagun in the same squad pops the transport and then shoot the guys getting out. Or insisting that you can't shoot your meltagun at a dreadnought and then, if you miss, instead assault the squad next to him.

The rules for (not) splitting fire and for only being allowed to shoot the unit you assaulted are there for simplicity and balance; not because they're realistic. The rules for transports grant one, limited exception. No need to call people douches for playing by the rules. Many other rules may seem silly to any given person, but we play by them because the game as a whole is enjoyable.

It's not being a douche, it's just the rules. It might not be realistic, but it's a balance issue, like Mannahnin said. Otherwise, why not let all individual models in a squad shoot different targets? after all, it's realistic.


Also, ...am I the only one who saw the title of this thread and immediately thought:

terranarc wrote:
Game balance? Maybe. Reasonability? Stupid.

Talk about opening a can and not being able to eat what's inside!

The list of rules that are entirely unreasonable but work for game balance is a very, very long list. It starts with drop pods misshapping when they land on a grot, works its way through the fact that you can kill the guy hiding behind the bunker because you can see his buddy standing out in the open, and goes on to stuff like Joe can't pick up dead Bob's plasma gun because apparently plasma gun trigger pulling takes such different training to bolter trigger pulling that there is no way Joe could work it out.

Getting upset because someone wants to play by the rules is entirely unreasonable.

kmdl1066 wrote:

terranarc wrote:
Game balance? Maybe. Reasonability? Stupid.

Getting upset because someone wants to play by the rules is entirely unreasonable.

Not quite sure when I gave the impression that I'd be getting upset. Like I said, if we were playing a game and you called me out on it I'd be ok with it but I wouldn't enforce that rule on you at all.
I just personally think it's a dumb rule and if my opponent's fine with it, not play with said rule.

R-word, bullcrap, douche....

No, you are not upset at all.

/sarcasm