Monday, November 03, 2008

When your transport blows up...

...your troops can be assaulted by anyone who shot at the transport!

I've been going over the rules issue that occurred between my match with Midnight and I eventually came to the realization that I was right. :D

The blue portion in this paragraph is a rationale but can be ignored for the purpose of understanding what this specific rule is saying:

(ronald's entry)
You are choosing to ignore this particular written portion where it is very clear ONLY 1 UNIT is being discussed. Yet you are arguing for something that is UNWRITTEN about multiple units being allowed to do so. IF GW wanted to clear something up and include other units, THEN they would have WRITTEN something that should reflect multiple units. Why should I disregard something that is written and then justify as correct something that is unwritten. (/ronald's entry)

"Remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad can not 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."

This is the important part of the rule. What validates my point is the fact that "it" is a pronoun and in this sentence is being used to refer to the subject which is the transport (..."a transport...", also a noun.). It doesn't refer to "a ranged attack" which is not a noun(nor the subject):

(ronald's entry)A ranged attack is a noun, please check your grammar. That's why there is an "A".(ronald's entry)
"However , if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it..."

Also if a unit has to destroy the transport before it can assault the disembarked passengers then the easier way of saying that would be:

"However, if a unit shot and destroyed the transport, then they may assault the disembarked passengers" or something to that effect. :D which would be more specific and not as generalized as the one in the book.

whew. muntik nang hindi kinaya nang powers ko ang explanation na ito! :P

(ronalds entry)Let's forget English, or God, or other rules for that matter. Focus on this particular notation of the rule. I agree, they chose poorly in their sentence construction especially if you are looking for loopholes. We don't have to jump on the bandwagon and JOIN them in such a poor display - particularly arguing for an invalid point. This mind you is how people have been able to justify the PONZI scheme - it sounds logical but it is not.

In fact, the choice of weapons used is also poor. Hence, it could have been written with a meltagun, bolters and bolt pistols as examples.

The simple truth is this is written as a reminder to the player that:
a) all models in a single unit fire simultaneously.
b) if in the rare occasion that a player is choosing what weapon to use against said transport, either a meltagun, bolter, bolt pistol could be shot first especially if you are shooting from the REAR. if you choose to fire with a bolter first and rapid fire, it automatically disallows you from assaulting. if you choose a meltagun or bolt pistol, then this particular NOTE gives you something to consider.
c) it also sets the limitation on what you can do after, i.e. no assault if you used a rapid fire or heavy weapon, AND i'm sure though it doesn't say it - if you are more than 6" away from the disembarked passengers.

Of course the reality is that there will be situations where there are 2 or more units that can shoot the transport is not overlooked. This why I believe it is written this way. However, if a transport is destroyed (either result meaning wrecked or explodes) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may now assault the disembarked passengers, if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules. It simply means that you may have more than 1 unit shooting at the same transport BUT only the UNIT that shot it (IT refers to A RANGED ATTACK) is the one that can assault. OTHERWISE, it would have been written AS "the UNITS that shot IT (the transport) may now assault the now disembarked passengers..."

Again this is consistent with how they started of this NOTE. It is a single unit that is firing on the transport. Others could also be firing at the transport. However, it is ONLY that UNIT that shoots and destroys the transport that may assault the disembarked passengers.(/ronald's entry)


(ryan's entry)

This is why the word "IT" can not be used to refer to "a ranged attack":

Main Entry:
ˈit, ət
Middle English, from Old English hit — more at he

before 12th century
1: that one —used as subject or direct object or indirect object of a verb or object of a preposition usually in reference to a lifeless thing (took a quick look at the house and noticed it was very old), a plant (there is a rosebush near the fence and it is now blooming), a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded (don't know who it is), a group of individuals or things, or an abstract entity (beauty is everywhere and it is a source of joy) — compare he, she, it, they

—used as subject of an impersonal verb that expresses a condition or action without reference to an agent (it is raining)

3 a—used as anticipatory subject or object of a verb (it is necessary to repeat the whole thing) ; often used to shift emphasis to a part of a statement other than the subject (it was in this city that the treaty was signed) b—used with many verbs as a direct object with little or no meaning it back to camp)

4—used to refer to an explicit or implicit state of affairs or circumstances (how is it going)
: a crucial or climactic point
(this is it)

"IT" is a pronoun:

Main Entry:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin pronomin-, pronomen, from pro- for + nomin-, nomen name — more at pro-, name

: any of a small set of words in a language that are used as substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and whose referents are named or understood in the context


in the sentence the words "destroyed by a ranged attack" is the predicate. ranged attack is a "verb"

Main Entry:
Middle English verbe, from Anglo-French, from Latin verbum word, verb — more at word
14th century
: a word that characteristically is the grammatical center of a predicate and expresses an act, occurrence, or mode of being, that in various languages is inflected for agreement with the subject, for tense, for voice, for mood, or for aspect, and that typically has rather full descriptive meaning and characterizing quality but is sometimes nearly devoid of these especially when used as an auxiliary or linking verb


the argument of written vs unwritten and singular form vs plural form is a weak one. it just won't hold up. look at this:

If a unit starts its move outside difficult terrain, the player must declare if he wants his unit to try to enter difficult terrain as part of their move. If he chooses not to, the unit moves as normal but may not enter difficult terrain. (page 14 "moving thru difficult terrain")

the entire rule is written in singular form. assuming only 1 unit and 1 situation. what if there are multiple units outside of difficult terrain? does that mean that this rule will apply only to one of them? of course not. this is because this rule is a "condition" and any unit satisfying this condition will use this rule.

scan the rule book. you will see many such cases where the rule is written in singular form but is applied to every unit that satisfies it's condition.


So you see? The first "IT" in the rule refers to the transport(subject) and not "a ranged attack"
(predicate). The second "IT" in the sentence refers to "a unit".

I'm not gaining anything by arguing this rule and make it push thru. This rule will be just as dangerous to me as it will be to everyone else. It will make things even more fun though. And mostly because this is what I think is the right interpretation. lol

My aguments end here and if it is not enough to convince people then like I said I would rather let them decide(hence the vote).

If in the future an FAQ is released and I am proven wrong then great victory for the other interpretation and I will eat my words and appologize for the confusion I caused. Hindi ako ma-proud na tao. :D

(/ryan's entry)


midnight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
midnight said...

the remember part is for those people who would say, i'm shooting with lascannon first and then declare i'm shooting the disembarked passengers with bolters next. this is probably because they now consider the vehicle and unit inside as one and the same unit.

to be honest though, if you didn't blow up the rhino and then assaulted the rhino - i'd have no issue with you killing off all the passengers as I'm sure they couldn't disembark.

Salubri said...

i think you were supposed to disregard that line about the lascannon. it was just some sort of rationale why the rules were changed to become the way it is now. in previous editions you just waste your bullets as soon as one heavy weapon blows the transport. in essence it's a bone that GW is throwing at us. making the transport and the troops inside as though it's just one target. hence even if the transport blows up as long as you chose it as a target you may assault and not stand around in the open scratching your ass. lol.

but i say ignore the first line because a squad that shot with a lascannon can not assault anyway (see last line... assaulting is still covered by normal assault rules)so that line is just a rationale and not to be inlcuded as part of the argument.

midnight said...

well if the weapon was a melta for example, then it's the same thing. that's what i mean na GW is changing the rule where before if you destroyed a transport with a lucky shot, you couldn't assault the disembarked troops even if you used meltas and bolt pistols to shoot the rear of the transport.

the point of our contention, it was that your first unit didn't destroy the transport when they shot. it was another unit that destroyed the transport. so i remain unconvinced that the first unit still gets to assault the passengers.

i'm not sure we should be deciding which part of the statements are rationale. GW is not rationale.

midnight said...

for people who are new to the game, it may seem like a jolly good thing to consider that the transport and unit inside are one and the same. so they could say, i can shoot the vehicle with my tank killing weapon and then the troops with my bolt pistols/bolters/etc. once they disembark.

that's why i think GW wrote that clarification - NO you can't shoot the disembarked troops with your other weapons. However, if you do destroy the transport, the unit can NOW assault the disembarked passengers and not sit on your ass and wait for the next turn.

Darth Ravage said...

My take is that current wording just gives the conditions
- "if a transport is destroyed by a range attack"
- "unit that shot it..."

It is not clear with the current wordings if the range attack that destroyed the transport should also have come from the unit that intends to assault the resulting disembarked passengers.

As the rule is written, you just have to ask 1) if the tranport was destroyed by a range attack and 2) did assaulting unit shoot at the transport. If the answer to both is yes, then I say the unit can assault the disembarked passengers.

I can also argue the other way around, but for me to do that I will have to go use the "intention of the rule" as trump card... since I can't testify in behalf of GW, that would be a line of argument I wouldn't take. Only an FAQ from GW will be enough.

My gut feel is that the intention was that the range attack from the unit should have been the one that destroyed the transport. Sadly, the wordings used is pretty much open to interpretation at best. If I was to reword that bit of rule, I would have said "However, if a transport is destroyed by a range attack, the unit that shot and destroyed it may assault the now disembarked passengers".

I say roll the dice if you walk into the same situation.

I am also saying ahead that if I was jusdging a tourney,in absence of an FAQ or further enlightenment, I would rule that unit can assault disembarked passengers. Also, also... I promise I would be consistent with said ruling even if I am the one on the receiving end of the impending assault of doom. :P

PS - excuse me for the "lawyering"... I do it for a living (even if I am not a lawyer). Please note that I can also argue contrary to what I just said. Hehe.

midnight said...

for me, if the intent was to let all units that shot at a transport the opportunity to assault the disembarked passengers, the wording would have been

if a transport is destroyed by a ranged attack, then all units that shot at it may assault...

if you recall, the example given was 1 unit. it did not mention multiple units shooting at the same target. hence, i would argue that it is only that the intent is to clarify for that 1 unit only.

Salubri said...

October 2008 FAQ for 5th ed rulebook:

Q. Must passengers fire at the same target that
their vehicle is firing at?
A. No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle)
and so
can fire at a different target.

like i said. that is the spirit of the law. the transport and it's passengers are one target (even if they are different units). maybe this will convince some of you or maybe it won't. i won't even try to explain as it is just as hard to grasp for most people as 1 God in 3 persons. :D

in any case i want to state that i'm not arguing for my own benefit. we will run tourneys in the future and we have to settle these things hopefully amongst ourselves without asking for outside help unless it's necessary (why i haven't posted these on any other forums). what is important is we reach a consensus(hopefully the right one) so we apply the unified ruling and not be inconsistent.

personally either way works for me as long as I know the ruling before playing(and that it doesn't change with every opponent). makes for less surprises. :)

Salubri said...

frak it! can someone get commissar alfred in here? we have a real life lawyer in this group. lol

Darth Ravage said...

or someone can email GW... that's what alfred does :D

In the meantime, do what the rulebook says in case of disputes in interpretation... roll the dice

Salubri said...

the roolz boyz have blinked out of internet existence. GW now wants you to spend dollars to contact their rules expert by phone. :D

midnight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
henri said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
henri said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
henri said...

Ok so what is the verdict?
It does make a difference on games. . . :D
The rules are a bit confusing now. . . hehehe

Can we(players) just Vote on it? Put all the arguments into the open then close it with the players consensus. (say for 1 week) This then becomes our rule on all games played unless GW releases a FAQ on it :D

Points are too close to call- :D
This is the other fun thing about our 40k gaming - learning the rules :)

Salubri said...

Yes - multiple units that shot at the transport that blew up may assault disembarked passengers.

No - only the unit that blew up the transport may assault the disembarked passengers.

Obviously my vote is "Yes"


every other member of the group should also vote on this matter and the consensus whatever it may be is what we apply to our games.

henri said...

If its time to vote:
My vote is the shooter that blows up the apc/transport gets the charge!!!
any shooters before it blew up doesnt get to charge it. . . So only units that have not shot it can shoot and charge the passengers :D
So no pot shots schemes. . . :D
Unless one decleares it is going to charge it after the shooting phase(parang fantacy rules)
just my view ...

henri said...

Vote pala : hehehe :
YES - same sa Ryan
- - - - - - - - - -
Has nothig to do with what i Think but to make the rules simple :D


Salubri said...

we can reach a quorum without the votes of sigis, kim, alfred(though this might be two votes! lol) and lesther. they hardly ever check this blog me thinks. but if they suddenly vote on the issue then those votes will also count.

so the votes that we need will be those of:
ronald, emcee, ryan, romy, henri, mike, joel, ian.

8... if we're deadlocked we maintain status quo (only unit that blew up transport may assault..)

Salubri said...

what the hell!? first you disagreed with me then you voted "yes". lol

make up your mind. :P ano ba talaga?

henri said...

Issue if you blew up the Transport. . . :

Yes: 2
- Henri

No: 1

midnight said...

sorry. i'm not voting on this. if you guys want to play at the house, then i will stand pat on it. if we play in galle, then use your consensus. nuff said.

Salubri said...

if the rest of you guys are still not convinced with the arguments i've given then i'm still open to a consensus.

i will abide by whatever the rest of the group decides.

but in case you want me to explain my point further we can do it when we meet(i can explain it more visually that way). it's really just a matter of elementary english. whether literal or in the spirit of the law emcee and i are right.


Anonymous said...

I vote yes to Ryan.

midnight said...

what i said still stands, decide what you guys want. but if we are playing here, it's not allowed.

i don't buy it.

Darth Ravage said...

my vote is yes, not to ryan (hehe) but to the... whatever it is we are voting on.

Let me just clarify that the vote is not to decide who is right, or more right than the other. Fact is either one of us, or all of us for that matter, can be wrong.

This thing we are talking about is a gray area, which can be interpreted either way, as I have mentioned so many number of times in all my posts. At this point, in the absence of an FAQ that addressed this, I am inclined to interpret in one way, to which I will not force anyone to accept, coz I am not Lord and Master, contrary to what my callsign implies. In time (salubri wrote to the GW roolsboys), when my interpretation turns out to be wrong, I will say oooppps and accept the congratulatory hits at the back of my head with grace.

My vote is neither biased, given that I have 3 armies with lots of transports and 3 armies with no tranports... couldn't care less which wins.

Guys, dudes, countrymen, old men with toys... we are not in congress... we are playing a game. If you come across another gray area next time, roll the dice during the game to decide and then discuss later and get the consensus of the majority. Make "negotiations" easy... we are not negotiating for nuclear disarmament here.

Lastly, it is not worth blowing away friendships because of rules disputes about a game.

May the force be with you... always.

Salubri said...

agreed. i'm sorry if i sound arrogant at times. bravado lang yun. pabiro lang.


and yes don't vote for me. vote for the topic. this isn't ronald vs ryan. just one interpretation vs the other.

henri said...


Well I hope we get the answer soon- for me I dont mind - Which ever is correct. . .

I hope no offences taken from players opinions - no bad feelings - Rules are to keep teh game on standard it should not keep us from having fun. . . (you may kiss and make up)hehheheh joking around!!! :D

My opinion :
but again as I stated I agree with midnight's arguments - but to make the game easier to play I have vote for Salubri (game play wise). It is based on how I interpret the game rules- not that i agree with its logic. Honestly I would rather declare my charges on the shooting phase as to eliminate the pot shots and unfair tactics of charging on the game (real life they fire at the same time-so targets are chosen before hand- including the charges ):D . . .

Again just to make the game play faster in future games :D ( so I dont have to roll a dice before every game - But Logic does tell me Midnight has a good point - )

henri said...

by the way - Any games on saturday?