Void Mine Unit Targeting

In the Void Mine's profile, the rule states, "Once per battle, a Voidraven can drop a void mine on an enemy unit it moves over in one of its Movement phases. After the Voidraven has moved, pick one enemy unit that it flew over. Then, roll three D6 for each VEHICLE or MONSTER in the unit, or one D6 for every other model in the unit, up to a maximum of 10 D6. For each roll of a 3+, the unit being bombed suffers a mortal wound."

Special attention to the bolded part. The rule seems to be intended to function as it did in the previous edition, meaning it can only attack a unit it moved over in the same movement phase.

However, reading as written, could the argument be made for the use of the void mine against any unit it has moved over? The first sentence implies that it can, and it never specifies the previous movement phase.

I want to say no that's just silly, but the words seem to suggest you can remember a target for later.

I read it differently myself. The first and second sentences are separate clauses. The first describes that it can drop a bomb, the second describes how to drop it. The second sentence doesn't mention prior turns. I'd call shenanigans on someone that dropped a bomb on turn 6 that targeted a unit that was o ly flown over in turn 1. Sure, it could probably be written clearer than it is, but I don't think the wording as written allows the shenanigans.

Quote :

The first and second sentences are separate clauses. The first describes that it can drop a bomb, the second describes how to drop it.

As a foreword, I'd like to clarify that I never plan to use the Void Mine in this way. I'm simply arguing that I can.

True, they are separate clauses, but one describes that you can drop a bomb, but it also clarifies what you can drop it on. This makes sense from the standpoint of logical progression, first stating that you can drop it, next what you can drop it on, and finally how the mechanic functions.

Quote :

The second sentence doesn't mention prior turns.

But the first does, or at least implies so. The second sentence wouldn't need to reiterate something clarified in the first.

Quote :

I'd call shenanigans on someone that dropped a bomb on turn 6 that targeted a unit that was o ly flown over in turn 1.

As you rightfully should, might I add. I'll admit, this interpretation is rules lawyering, it hinges off of two fairly innocuous words.

Quote :

Sure, it could probably be written clearer than it is, but I don't think the wording as written allows the shenanigans.

Allow me to clarify. From my argumentative standpoint, would it not have made more sense to phrase the first sentence to something like this?

"Once per battle, a Voidraven can drop a void mine on an enemy unit it moves over in its previous Movement Phase"

Changed phrase italicized for clarity.

Weighing in from an objective standpoint, there is one phrase that doesn't disallow/arguably allows this interpretation, and zero that disallow such a use.

I'm not a native speaker but if the rule would be intended to remember a target for later, wouldn't it be written in past or present perfect, e.g.
"a Voidraven can drop a void mine on an enemy unit it *had moved* over in one of its Movement phases"?

The use of the simple present "it moves" implies to me, that this attack happens in the movement phase and that the voidraven has to cross the unit in this specific phase (which would be much less complicated cause you don't need to bookkeep every crossed unit)...
The bomb is neither in the weapons table nor in the sentence with the eqipped weapons, so it isn't a weapon to me compared to the missiles. Because the ability happens in the movement phase, you can't change the text to "previous movement phase".