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.

Oh you know me just trying to get my post count up like you it seems.

Why not try and read it, or just ignore it completely. I've said my piece and you have said yours. Flame as you feel is necessary.

I have read it. It still makes no sense whatsoever when you read the full rule. Your constant appeals to authority and strawman arguments are getting tiresome.

Gwar! wrote:What on Earth are you babbling on about now?

Software engineering... what? You write software therefore you know the rules better?

I am the Queen of Sweedlandia, therefore I have the Divine Right to Rule and therefore am always right!

P.S. Sarcasm

Yep, I got it. Good one thanks for pointing it out.

Gwar! wrote:
Furthermore, you show a (again) fundamental lack of knowledge, this time of the rules of Warhammer 40,000. Your statement "You cannot assault a unit that you didn't shoot at." is highly inaccurate. The actual rule is that if you have shot, you may only assault the unit you shot at. Therefore, units that have not shot may assault any unit in range, not (as you implied) be unable to assault because they did not shoot at their target.

Hey good catch. I wouldn't want to mislead anyone. That is exactly what I meant to say, just not as eloquently as you. Yes, please forgive me for leading all those sheep astray.

I'm locking this.



















Oh wait, wrong forum

sbeasley wrote: But seriously look at how shooting and assault works. The rule is so that you can't shoot one unit and assault a completely different unit in a different direction.

That's one purpose of it, yes. It's also (at least as explained by the Devs back when the rule was first introduced to the game) intended to limit the number of enemy units that can be affected by a single unit's activation.

Or, to put it another way, if a unit performs one action against an enemy unit, then anything else that the unit does that affects enemy units should generally affect only that same unit. This helps keep a balance between shooty units and assaulty units, and forces players to think a little more tactically about what their units are going to do.

This is an exception to that rule, because a transport and the unit that just disembarked are effectively the same unit even if not defined that way in game terms.

This perception is perhaps a large part of where you're running into disagreement. The unit and transport are not the same unit. Not even remotely. The only way that applies is that they move together.

So they wrote the exception not taking into consideration about multiple units firing at the same unit.

Frankly, I think it's more likely that they did take that into consideration, and deliberately write the rule as is to exclude those units from assaulting. Because that's how it works in every other situation in the game: If you shoot, you can only assault the unit at which you shot.

What we should be focusing on is what makes it fair, and balanced, not oh because of this small caveat in the way I read the rules you are denied.

You're more than welcome to do that in your gaming group, or in a thread discussing how people choose to play the game. But in a thread aimed at determining what the rules actually are, all that's important is the RAW.

You won't get a disparate group of poeple to all agree on what is balanced and fair any more than you will get them to agree on what was originally intended, and whether or not what was originally intended is still how the game is intended to be played.

However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot the vehicle may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules.

This doesn't actually change the meaning of the rule, since that's what it's saying to begin with.

You cannot assault a unit that you didn't shoot at.

However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot the vehicle may assault the now disembarked passengers.

So this is saying if you shot at a transport unit that is not longer there you do the however part of this rule.

But it's not. Again, what it's saying is that the unit that shot the vehicle can assault. Which unit the 'the' is referring to is defined by the rest of the statement. In this case, since the rule is discussing the vehicle being destroyed by a ranged attack, the reference to 'the unit that shot it' can only be referring to the unit that fired the shot that destroyed the vehicle.

You have to take the statement in context. You can't just pull out the part you like and apply it without the context, as it completely changes the meaning.

Guard wrote:I'm locking this.



















Oh wait, wrong forum

In Soviet Russia, Forum locks you!

Well, since a majority have weighed in. I concede on a RAW argument. It is obvious that I'm not a literary genius, but hey I can only improve. It has been a good debate. And like I said I actually prefer your interpretation of the rule, so hey bonus for me.

But I am all for making the game as difficult against myself, so there can be no excuses when I win

I'm happy you conceded but still suspect you're uncertain as to why others feel so sure about the RAW, so I'll attempt a brief outline showcasing the sentences in question to help you understand. The full rule is actually two sentences because since the one everyone is fond of quoting begins with 'however' it is impossible to properly read it without the sentence in front of it.

"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..."

By looking at the sentence in front of the 'however' sentence you see we are talking about when a squad destroys a vehicle (that's a single squad, since within the functions of the game only a squad can ever be responsible for the actual destroyed/explodes result) I'm now going to go through the two sentences and remove some of the excess chatter and also connect the 'however' sentence to the previous sentence, since grammatically this is functionally identical to the use of 'however'.

"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 by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..."

I could modify this slightly to make it even more obvious thusly; (this is all adjusted properly within the English language, and is just done to highlight what the actual rule is saying - yes, I am grossly simplifying it here but it stays the same functional sentence structure.

"a squad cannot shoot and destroy a transport and then also shoot the passengers, however, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..."

The entire rule is specifically and explicitly talking about a single squad (in a slightly drawn out and awkwardly written thought). But, I think this will help clarify for you where your confusion comes from. You're taking a sentence that, because it starts with 'however' is not a complete thought, and then you're trying to apply logic to it. With the lack of utilizing the information from the previous sentence, which is connected, you are losing the focus of the rule.

Hence - 'the unit' is quite specifically about only a single unit because it's supposed to be about a single unit, not because they should have included any annotations for multiple units. Grammatically there's no reason for them to have done so, and thus the rule is clear RAW and RAI.

Regards,
Thor.

sbeasley wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Think about it like this, Squad A is shooting at the tank and does nothing, then all of a sudden Squad B Fires and it explodes. Squad A was not ready for it to explode and not ready to charge the occupants.

This would make sense if shooting happened at different times, but shooting supposedly happens all simultaneously. So both unit A and unit B are shooting at the same time. How would they know if there shots blew it up or not. They wouldn't.

While not wanting to beat the poor horse any more than necessary, it's probably also worth pointing out that this is a misconception.


Shooting from a single unit is simultaneous. But there is nothing that says that shooting from the entire army is considered simultaneous. The Shooting phase rules step through a unit at a time. It's perfectly legal within the rules of the shooting phase for one unit to blow up a transport, for example, and then the next unit to target the transport's passengers who have just bailed out.

Yaaaaaay

So this can die (again) now?

kirsanth wrote:Yaaaaaay

So this can die (again) now?

Nevar, not until the thread receives moar Cowbells and Multilazors.

insaniak wrote:
While not wanting to beat the poor horse any more than necessary, it's probably also worth pointing out that this is a misconception.


Shooting from a single unit is simultaneous. But there is nothing that says that shooting from the entire army is considered simultaneous. The Shooting phase rules step through a unit at a time. It's perfectly legal within the rules of the shooting phase for one unit to blow up a transport, for example, and then the next unit to target the transport's passengers who have just bailed out.

Yes this horse has definitely be beaten tonight. And I actually re-read that section of the BGB tonight, because I thought that it was simultaneous, but it wasn't. Only within the unit is it simultaneous.

So

Unit A: Shoots at transport and isn't destroyed.
Unit B: Shoots at transport and it is destroyed. Units disembark.
Unit C: Shoots at disembarked unit.

Unit A: Cannot assault, because the original targeted transport is no longer a valid target
Unit B: Can Assault, because of this specific rule that has been "beaten to death"
Unit C: Can Assault, because that is how the game is played silly.

While it doesn't make logical sense that it should occur this way, it is what the rules state should happen. But as the most important rule states, these are a framework and with our local group we can house rule this anyway we like.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread, and I will be more careful of my RAI arguments if people are truly wanting a RAW answer, or atleast if I'm giving a RAI answer explicitly state, hey this is how I think they are intending it to play out. But the RAW is this, even though I mixed them within this entire thread. I truly felt that there might be some RAW language that could interpret it to my RAI thought.

Oh how I wish they would have just said.

"However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack caused by the unit that shot it, the unit may assault the now disembarked passengers..." That is, by far, a more clear representation of what is being RAW

sbeasley wrote: But as the most important rule states, these are a framework and with our local group we can house rule this anyway we like.

Please, don't use TMIR for ANYTHING.

TMIR says I can request, nay, DEMAND that I autowin on a 1+ or that all my marines have 10's for all stats and a 0+ Superinvulnerable save, and if you refuse you are TFG and a cheater.
TMIR is (in my experience) used by cheaters and cheaters alone.

I guess you just won. congrats.

Sometimes, I wonder if you post stuff just to try and infuriate people or if you are truly serious.

Instead of looking how I've come around to RAW, and thinking hey maybe this guy isn't so bad, and can be reasoned with, you have to pull out one statement, and be a jerk about it. I've even offered peace, and apologized if I offended you, and only receive aggression from you.

Maybe I should be explicit in what I meant my stating the TMIR. That this is after all a game, and if all the amount of rules lawyering, and nit picking the words to death make the game not fun to play anymore, because of all the bickering. Why not house rule it, and say okay here this is how we are going to play. Tournaments are another matter. AND I specifically stated that it was only with my local group.

Why do you insist in making an argument of everything? Do you have to battle over every statement made on the boards? Was it worth it in satisfaction points or something?

Seriously just let it rest.

Oh wait I know what it is.

Gwar! wrote:TMIR says I can request, nay, DEMAND that I autowin on a 1+ or that all my marines have 10's for all stats and a 0+ Superinvulnerable save, and if you refuse you are TFG and a cheater.

You know, Gwar, no matter how many times you insist this to be the case, it's not at all what TMIR actually says.

TMIR is (in my experience) used by cheaters and cheaters alone.

TMIR is, by definition, impossible for cheaters to use, since it calls for both players to agree. If both players aren't happy with the resolution, you're not following TMIR. If both players are happy with the resolution, then nobody is cheating as the players have agreed to play that way.

You're just opposed to the idea that the rules aren't set in stone tablets brought down from the mountain.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:TMIR says I can request, nay, DEMAND that I autowin on a 1+ or that all my marines have 10's for all stats and a 0+ Superinvulnerable save, and if you refuse you are TFG and a cheater.

You know, Gwar, no matter how many times you insist this to be the case, it's not at all what TMIR actually says.

TMIR is (in my experience) used by cheaters and cheaters alone.

TMIR is, by definition, impossible for cheaters to use, since it calls for both players to agree. If both players aren't happy with the resolution, you're not following TMIR. If both players are happy with the resolution, then nobody is cheating as the players have agreed to play that way.

You're just opposed to the idea that the rules aren't set in stone tablets brought down from the mountain.

All I am saying is that TMIR is almost never used "properly" and is always used by someone wanting to cheat, citing "The rules say I have to have fun and I won't have fun unless..."

@sbeasley: I am totally serious, and I never intend to infuriate anyone. As for your thinly veiled insult of "Oh wait I know what it is", well, I shall not descend to your petty level.

It wasn't an insult at all, but I can see after reading it that it could definitely be taken the wrong way. It was kind of an incomplete sentence. I'm not trying to start anything with you.

It is good to at least see that you are serious, and not just trying to hide behind the anonymity of the web.

sbeasley wrote:It is good to at least see that you are serious, and not just trying to hide behind the anonymity of the web.

I am brusque at times I admit, but having just come back from a lovely "vacation" I assure you I have mellowed out a bit (I hope anyway).

Of course If you ever want to rant at me, my Skype is free for all to ring and whine at me. And ask rules questions

Gwar! wrote:All I am saying is that TMIR is almost never used "properly" and is always used by someone wanting to cheat, citing "The rules say I have to have fun and I won't have fun unless..."

Ignoring for a moment that this is not what you actually said, that doesn't make any sense. The fact that some people use a rule incorrectly is no reason to throw it out. LOS was almost never played properly in 4th edition... should we have just ignored the LOS rules then?

Or should we have just tried to educate people on how the rule was actually supposed to be applied?



TMIR is there to remind people that they are playing a game, and that they should feel free to adapt that game to suit themselves. But it's also very clear that both players have to agree to play the same way... So if you're going to claim that your Marines should have a 1+ save and 10's for stats, that's your choice. But it's only valid under TMIR if your opponent is also happy to play that way.

The the problem is this whole arguement is rather pointless, if you are a good player.

All one has to do is shoot the tranport with OTHER units first, thus assuring that the trasnport is already destroyed so that the unit you want to assault with is able to do so (by any interpretation of the rules)...or that the assaulting unit is the LAST unit to fire at the transport, thus allowing the assault (again, by any interpretation of the rules).

Good generalship will overcome poor rules-lawyering everytime...especially in tourneys with soft scores.

Gwar! wrote:So your whole argument is "I don't like how the game is so I'm gonna change it."

Think about it like this, Squad A is shooting at the tank and does nothing, then all of a sudden Squad B Fires and it explodes. Squad A was not ready for it to explode and not ready to charge the occupants.

Yet every other squad that didn't shoot at the tank were ready and can?

Stricly raw speaking on this particular rule, I am not sure if you didn't destroy the transport if you can assault the unit inside of it with the way the rule is being presented.

Until they make it specifically clear that the unit that destroyed it (not shot it), and only that unit may assault, I along with everyone else will continue to play it with common sense in mind and will allow an assault.

Though against that rare TFG that actually tries to pull this garbage, Ill shoot with other units first if possible and then shoot the squad inside with my nearby unit.

Night Lords wrote:Though against that rare TFG that actually tries to pull this garbage, Ill shoot with other units first if possible and then shoot the squad inside with my nearby unit.

Oh, so people following the rules is TFG now?

I feel for your opponents.

Night Lords wrote:Until they make it specifically clear that the unit that destroyed it (not shot it), and only that unit may assault, I along with everyone else will continue to play it with common sense in mind and will allow an assault.

Read the assault rules.
Units that shoot may only assault the unit that they shot.
Transports are units. The unit inside them is a different unit.

The only exeptions are pretty clear, and the singular is not vague.

I do not even have transports, so this is only a penalty for myself - as I am not TFG enough to cheat my opponent because I assume he considers details irrelevant or contrary to "common sense" - or too dim to notice them.

Oh look, surprise. @Gwar and the guy who clings onto Gwar:

You can play in your little broken game, and you can argue until your face is blue, but it means nothing. There is no proof that that situation had multiple units, nor is there any proof in the wording stating that only the unit that destroyed it may assault (as it would be "only the unit that destroyed it may assault" if that is what they intended).

Again, I know its tough, but we have to go to turn to common sense.

-Units who didnt shoot at it can assault them
-The unit which destroyed it can assault them
-The units which shot and failed to get that lucky shot stand there and do nothing...?

Yea right.

Even by RAW, going case by case:

Squad A - Shot the tank? Yes -> "The unit that shot it may assault" -> Assault

Squad B - Shot the tank? Yes -> "The unit that shot it may assault" -> Assault

Squad C - Shot the tank? No. Shot a different tank -> No assault.


Easy. It also wont get you kicked in the nuts or out of tournaments.

Except that your view flatly contradicts the rules...

As for the Tournaments thing, anyone trying your version of the rules at any I run would be ejected post haste.

Sorry, but you do assaults on a case by case basis, as you have to do DT checks, measurements, LD tests, etc. when doing so. In this case you ask yourself "this unit shot the tank?" and if it did, it may assault, as written.

And Im sure going to your "tournament" where every simple rule is argued over would be great fun to endure for 8 hours. There would more time spent arguing than playing.

Night Lords wrote:You can play in your little broken game, and you can argue until your face is blue, but it means nothing. There is no proof that that situation had multiple units, nor is there any proof in the wording stating that only the unit that destroyed it may assault (as it would be "only the unit that destroyed it may assault" if that is what they intended).

Just out of curiosity, how do you refute my explanation of the two sentences that form the rule and how they clearly show which units may or may not assault the disembarked passengers? I'm all for common sense, but I fail to see how you're overlooking the points I raised. Would you mind revisiting that and shooting down my interpretation so I can see where you're coming from?

Regards,
Thor.

All your argument does is prove that it is indeed only 1 unit that the rulebook is discussing. The sentence you made into one sentence, from your side of the argument, brings two completely different thoughts into one. You start talking in a singular form, and then suddenly youre bringing multiple units into the argument by saying "[only] the unit that shot [destroyed] it may then assault".

From my point of view, it is a singular unit throughout, rendering the "unit that shot it may assault" as the unit that was being discussed a sentence before - The unit that may shoot lascannons, but cannot shoot bolters at the disembarked troops, however the unit that shot it may now assault.

It's simply given us a situation where there is one unit with lascannons and bolters, showing us the rules for how to deal with the now disembarked troops. In those two sentences we find we cannot shoot the unit with the remaining guns, however the unit may now assault.

Seeing as how you do everything in a specific order, there is no need to mention a second unit because only one of three things can happen:

- the unit destroys the vehicle, and the above is put in place
- the unit fails to destroy the vehicle
- the unit shoots the troops after the vehicle is destroyed

So seeing as how it's a single unit being discussed, I fail to see how the wording proves that a second unit (an entirely different single unit) that missed cannot assault when the rule says that the unit that shot (not destroyed it) may now assault. On a case by case basis, which is 100% the way you play it when assaulting, you have to look at the rule in isolation. By doing so, you ask "This unit shot the transport?", and if it's yes, you may assault the unit.

Night Lords wrote:Oh look, surprise. @Gwar and the guy who clings onto Gwar

Ohh!
Is that me?

Or was I missing something again?


I understand your . . . "logic" previously then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Much easier if you ignore previous posts. Or just never read.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/250105.page

Still.