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.

graphics12 wrote:Based on what the rule book calls "the most important" rule if I am ever in your area I will play this by your interpretation, if you are ever in my area then you will have to play it buy ours, or you will need something other than the basic rule book to prove your interpretation, something like an FAQ.

The Most Important rule also allows me to Autowin on a 1+. If you disagree you are making the game unfun for me and thus in breach of this rule.

Please do not try and use TMIR as a justification for anything, as it is a breach of Rule #7, which states: "Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates."

graphics12 wrote:if you are ever in my area then you will have to play it buy ours

Only if you make it clear ahead of time what house rules you are applying to the game. Otherwise, we follow the rulebook.

Gwar! wrote:

graphics12 wrote:First the managers of the 5 local stores in my area have a combined total of more than 60 years of 40k experience

Firstly, I would like to point out that I have 9001 Years of 40k Experience and am precisely 1 second older than the Universe.

Furthermore, I respectfully request you familiarise yourself with the Tenets of You Make Da Call. You are actually in breach of rule #2 which states that "The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs". As one can see, "My Local GW manager" is not listed as one of these official sources.

I respectfully request that you follow Gwar!'s request.

Although Gwar is still a youngin (only 1 second older, you're practically a baby!)

I concur, lets review the Tenets and see if they can help keep this thread aon track without modding.

Er, wait I thought this was asked and answered. If moving but immobilized then autohit (or in Gwar's case autohit but still roll for kicks and watch Frazzled pelt you with dice). Am I wrong?

Frazzled wrote:Er, wait I thought this was asked and answered. If moving but immobilized then autohit (or in Gwar's case autohit but still roll for kicks and watch Frazzled pelt you with dice). Am I wrong?

Nope, you are right. I'll make you roll of course, because I am a mean troll who is TFG with a Dictionary and using TMIR to make sure I "have Fun"

Then prepare for a dice peltin boyo.

Ok so multirolls aside its an autohit?

Frazzled wrote:Ok so multirolls aside its an autohit?

Yes, it is an autohit, because it is Immobilised. To make it anything BUT an Autohit would be breaking the rule of "If Immobilised you autohit".

graphics12 wrote:I am not sure what area of the U.S. you live in, or how it is in any other area, but out here in the wilds of the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon and most of Idaho and Montana from personal experiences) there are very few if any independant stores that sell GW products of any kind.

Huh? I've lived in four different cities in Oregon in the last 16 year--albeit three of them were Portland and two of the surrounding areas--and I've never had any trouble finding a local store with GW product. I can think of more than ten stores off the top of my head, and that doesn't include the several I can think of in other cities.

I was just in Oregon for a wedding, and over the course of four days came across one game store in Eugene and another in Bend that carried GW products.

Gwars statement is true i did my own FLGS snooping around and they agree
Also someone defied Gwar? That is like dividing by zero or something and normally ends up with the culprit baffled and confused and also back to playing 2nd edition and Gork Morka with a all female squat army

I understand not quoting the portion of TMIR about having fun as that has little relevence to any actual rules debate. When I referenced it I was actually thinking of the vary last sentance and since it is not clear to me if we are allowed to directly quote a rule I will paraphrase.
If both players agree you can interpret a rule in whatever manner you see fit.

You folks read the rule on autohit and say that movement of the vehicle is irrelevent if it is immobilised in the shooting phase. We as a group of gamers on the other hand read the same rule and interpret from it that the most important part is the movement and base our decisions on that thereby disallowing the autohit if a vehicle has moved. Since we have two different interpretations of the same rule it is clear to me that local interpretations would apply on the gaming tables, at least until such time as the rule is changed or an errata issued since it seem that even GW's own FAQ's are not considered official sources of information for debates here in this section of the forums.

Then again I suppose the next thing I will be told is that local interpretations are not allowed in a rules debate? Oh well this one is done as far as i'm concerned.

G12

graphics12 wrote:Then again I suppose the next thing I will be told is that local interpretations are not allowed in a rules debate? Oh well this one is done as far as i'm concerned.

Local interpretations are not allowed in a rules debate.

You folks read the rule on autohit and say that movement of the vehicle is irrelevent if it is immobilised in the shooting phase. We as a group of gamers on the other hand read the same rule and interpret from it that the most important part is the movement and base our decisions on that thereby disallowing the autohit if a vehicle has moved. Since we have two different interpretations of the same rule it is clear to me that local interpretations would apply on the gaming tables, at least until such time as the rule is changed or an errata issued since it seem that even GW's own FAQ's are not considered official sources of information for debates here in this section of the forums.

The problem is that there's a third option here: That one of the two interpretations is wrong. In almost every case one of them is wrong, or at least less right. A FAQ isn't needed. We have tools of logic and reason at our disposal to determine if one interpretation is more valid than another. If these methods are correctly applied (as they have been in the case of this particular argument) then that interpretation should be the one used. You can't demand that people play it your way or present a FAQ when it can be shown that you are wrong and they are right. Rule interpretations are rarely a matter of opinion.

I can't believe this argument is still going.

Graphics, if I say "If you have Mountain Dew or Pepsi I will come over."

If you have Mountain Dew, I'm coming over.

If you have Pepsi, I'm coming over.

There is absolutely no difference between that example and the wording in the rulebook regarding hitting immobilized vehicles. If it is immobilized or didn't move last turn, everything hits it automatically.

No one else in the thread has stated otherwise. Your 'but my GW guys said' argument is no good here. Sometimes those guys are wrong (anyone remember the dispute about shooting from Eldar skimmers that moved 12"?). This is one of those times.

What hasn't been stated: If a vehicle that moved and subsequently immobilized is NOT hit automatically, then even stating immobilized in the rule is redundant:

Rhino moves 6" and gets immobilized, Graphics' group plays that models require 4+ to hit it in the next assault phase. The next turn the vehicle cannot move and is hit automatically. Immobilized has absolutely no bearing in this situation, as the vehicle already meets the 'did not move' criteria, and the group has ignored the immobilized criteria in the turn it DID move.

If this was the way the rules were intended to work, why would they even give immobilized as a criteria?

Excellent point, sir.