Assaulting a Different Unit After You Killed One Unit

[YourMomsBox]

If I say shoot at a squad of Space Marines, and wipe them all out in the Shooting Phase, can I Assault another unit assuming one is in range.

I understand that pg. 33 states that "a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit that it shot at - it cannot asault a different unit to the one it previously shot at."

Since that unit is no longer there do I:

a) lose the option to assault because I wiped out the initial target in the Shooting phase

or

b) since the initial unit is destroyed, still have the option to assault a unit as long as it is within range



I don't necessarily see it is a cut and dry type of answer, but then again, that's why I'm asking for other opinions.

Thanks in advance.

~Swizzlenuts~

[BuFFo]

Your squad stands out in the open, dumbfounded, at how awesome their guns are.

[lobster-overlord]

Choice a. You still are only able to assault the unit at which you shot. If that unit is no longer a viable assault target, you then have no option to assault. I've never seen it played otherwise, nor do I know of a rule/faq that specifies that you can choose a new target (even though I would like to as well).

[SeattleDV8]

You would lose the option to assault.
There is one exception on pg 67, If you destroy a transport with shooting you are allowed to assault the passengers.

[eriochrome]

Pretty Clear you cannot assault anyone. Unless the unit you destroyed was a transport then you can assault the occupants if in assault range.

[DarkLink]

Assaulting a unit inside a transport that you blew up is the one and only general exception to this rule (aside from units that can shoot at multiple targets, or ignore the normal restrictions, etc).

[karandras]

I understand that pg. 33 states that "a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit that it shot at - it cannot asault a different unit to the one it previously shot at." ~Swizzlenuts~

If you understand what is written, why are you asking this question?!?!?!

This is one of the rules that is clearly written.

The only exceptions to this is the aforementioned transports and a Tau caveat that allows a little flexibility.

[CitizenZero]

If you understand what is written, why are you asking this question?!?!?!

This is one of the rules that is clearly written.

The only exceptions to this is the aforementioned transports and a Tau caveat that allows a little flexibility.

Very constructive post.

[BuFFo]

If you understand what is written, why are you asking this question?!?!?!

This is one of the rules that is clearly written.

The only exceptions to this is the aforementioned transports and a Tau caveat that allows a little flexibility.

He seems like one of those players that is hoping he can come on the internet, get strangers to agree to his rules bending, so he can get some sort of advantage when arguing a ruling he knows is wrong with his buddies.

This is the only thing I can think of if he truly 'understands' the rule.

[CitizenZero]

He seems like one of those players that is hoping he can come on the internet, get strangers to agree to his rules bending, so he can get some sort of advantage when arguing a ruling he knows is wrong with his buddies.

This is the only thing I can think of if he truly 'understands' the rule.

For the record, he never stated he understood the rule. He stated that he understood what was written, which is different.

You can extrapolate a lot of things from that, but to suggest that he has some nefarious plot makes you seem like one of those players who comes on the internet to mock strangers as some sort of ego boost. Why couldn't you leave it at you original post in this thread and be ok with the knowledge you imparted?