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:

¹it

Pronunciation:

ˈit, ət

Function:

pronoun

Etymology:

Middle English, from Old English hit — more at he

Date:

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

2—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)
5: a crucial or climactic point (this is it)

---------------
"IT" is a pronoun:

Main Entry:

pro·noun

Pronunciation:

ˈprō-ˌnau̇n

Function:

noun

Etymology:

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

Date:

1530

: 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:

verb

Pronunciation:

ˈvərb

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English verbe, from Anglo-French, from Latin verbum word, verb — more at word

Date:

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)