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.

Our gaming group had a little problem our last game. Basicly my melta veterans immobilised a Land Raider then subsequently assaulted it.
I said they hit automatically and he said they didin't.

"Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn."

My point was that the sentence above either require that the vehicle is currently immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn.
His point was that the sentence require that the vehicle was immobilised or stationary its previous turn.

He said i should learn english grammar. But i'm like 99% sure im right.
So who is right?

You.

You are correct. The answer is in the rule you quoted. "Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn."

There are two distinct conditions regarding the assault in that sentence, and if you break the sentence down into the two portions of the sentence it should be clear to see. "Attacking a vehicle that IS immobilized" addresses the vehicles current state and is in regards to the vehicles condition at the time the assault occurs, so if at any time prior to the assault phase, including at any point during the current turn, the vehicle is immobilized, and any upcoming assault attacks will hit automatically.

The second portion of the sentence "Attacking a Vehicle that WAS stationary in its previous turn." This portion of the sentence regards a condition precedent and only occurs if the vehicle in its previous turn did not move, either voluntarily or otherwise. So in that case if the vehicle during its previous turn did not move, will be hit automatically by any assault that occurs.

As I read this, the first condition can occur regardless of what the vehicle's controlling player has done the previous turn and the second condition can only occur if the vehicle's controlling player does not move the vehicle the previous turn. I hope this helps.

Did the vehicle move in the turn before you shot and immobilized it?

Going by the chart in the rulebook (p.63), it appears entirely possible to fall under 2 different categories--a vehicle can be both immobilized and have moved at combat speed (or cruising speed) in its previous turn. The former permits automatic hits and the latter requires a 4+ (or 6) to hit. The classifications are not mutually exclusive and neither is said to have priority with regards to the chart.

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there anything in the rulebook that clears up this situation?

Bla_Ze:

You're correct. The condition of being immobilized is present tense, while the condition of not moving in the previous turn is past tense.

For those who say he is correct, how do you account for the following (p.63):

______________________Target D6 roll needed

Attacking a vehicle that ___________4+
moved at combat speed
in its previous turn.

Attacking a vehicle that __________6
moved at cruising speed
in its previous turn.


Despite the fact that the vehicle is currently immobilized, it did in fact move at one of the above speeds in the previous turn.

I see it like this. Even though it did move, it IS Immobilized.

Danny Internets: Just ask yourself a question, IS the vehicle immobilized? If it is, wouldn't any SANE person take the bold text as being the correct rule?

______________________Target D6 roll needed

Attacking a vehicle that___________Automatic Hit
is immobilised or was stationary
in its previous turn

Attacking a vehicle that ___________4+
moved at combat speed
in its previous turn.

Attacking a vehicle that __________6
moved at cruising speed
in its previous turn.

Yes, and if it is immobilized, then regardless of how far it moved in the previous turn it is automatically hit.

Shooting and assaulting don't happen at the exact same time. You shoot the vehicle, it comes to a screeching halt due to immobilisation, you then assault a stopped vehicle. If it wasn't immobilised, you would be assaulting a vehicle that is presently moving..

Colin Sic wrote:Shooting and assaulting don't happen at the exact same time. You shoot the vehicle, it comes to a screeching halt due to immobilisation, you then assault a stopped vehicle. If it wasn't immobilised, you would be assaulting a vehicle that is presently moving..

Unfortunately, this is a game of abstract rules, not reality. The rules don't support this--they present a clear contradiction which no one has been able to address using the rules themselves.

I see it like this. Even though it did move, it IS Immobilized.

Danny Internets: Just ask yourself a question, IS the vehicle immobilized? If it is, wouldn't any SANE person take the bold text as being the correct rule?

Just as yourself a question, DID the vehicle move in its previous turn? If so, why wouldn't any SANE person take the bold text as being the correct rule?

______________________Target D6 roll needed

Attacking a vehicle that___________Automatic Hit
is immobilised or was stationary
in its previous turn

Attacking a vehicle that _______4+
moved at combat speed
in its previous turn.

Attacking a vehicle that __________6
moved at cruising speed
in its previous turn.


Do you see why your argument doesn't even address my position?

Danny Internets:

I won't talk about sane people, but I will talk about literate people. Any English literate person will recognize that the player is presented with four conditions for three consequences. Three of those conditions involve whether the vehicle was moving in the previous turn, and one of those conditions is not exclusive with the other three thanks to the nature of the turn sequence.

A literate person will see that the condition that applies is not only the speed at which the vehicle moved in in its previous turn, but the speed at which a vehicle is moving during the current turn. Unless a vehicle is immobilized in the current turn, its speed will be defined during the previous turn.

Nurglitch wrote:A literate person will see that the condition that applies is not only the speed at which the vehicle moved in in its previous turn, but the speed at which a vehicle is moving during the current turn.

And that's exactly the problem

The chart says that there is one specific effect if the vehicle moved at a given speed last turn.
The chart says that there is one specific effect if the vehicle is currently stationary.

There is nothing to indicate which of those takes precedence if the vehicle moved at speed last turn and is currently stationary. Nor are they listed as being a 'chose only one' option.

So as the rules are presented, a vehicle that moved at combat speed last turn but is currently immobilised is both hit on a 4+ and automatically hit.


Assuming that the current status takes precedence seems the most sensible option. But it's not actually presented as such in the rules.

"Its" is the adjective modifying the noun "turn". They probably should have just said "the previous Players Turn" since I believe this is what they meant. It is always a problem when gaming authors write as they would speak.

Introducing "is" and "was" in the same statement was unfortunate because it made you both right.

Just another thing to clear up before a game because of lazy editing.

Zip Napalm wrote:Introducing "is" and "was" in the same statement was unfortunate because it made you both right.

They have 'is' and 'was' in the same sentence in this case because (in my opinion) they intended for current immobilised status to take precedence. Regardless of how fast the vehicle moved in its previous turn, if it's been immobilised between then and now, you hit it automatically.

Unfortunately, they just forgot to add the rule that would actually make it take precedence.

insaniak wrote:

Zip Napalm wrote:Introducing "is" and "was" in the same statement was unfortunate because it made you both right.

They have 'is' and 'was' in the same sentence in this case because (in my opinion) they intended for current immobilised status to take precedence. Regardless of how fast the vehicle moved in its previous turn, if it's been immobilised between then and now, you hit it automatically.

Unfortunately, they just forgot to add the rule that would actually make it take precedence.

We both see the problem it seems. While neither one of us can claim to know what Games Workshop meant, I think we can both agree that the writers(or editors) were being lazy.

Just think of that table as a yes/no result search. Once you find a "yes" you pick the effect to the right of it. If the vehicle IS immobilized or WAS stationary -> autohit. No need to check further down the table.

insaniak:

It's not a problem. The chart is used for finding the vehicles current speed. Temporal order, as defined by the turn sequence, indicates which option takes precedence if the vehicle moved at some speed last turn and is immobilized this turn. As Spetulhu indicates, the table is ordered present-top to past-bottom, and slowest-top to fastest-bottom, and a 'yes' answer excludes all other answers.

It's amusing to see that you think a vehicle being hit both automatically (1+) and on a 4+ is some sort of a problem. It's exactly like worrying that you have to roll btoh a 3+ and a 4+ on one die. Since 4 > 3, a 4+ and a 3+ = 3+ on 1D6.

I can imagine you being confused when, upon entering a store, you find that an item is on sale and the cashier demands less money that the old price-tag, and only as much as the new price tag. Apparently there would be nothing to indicate to you which price tag takes precedence, and you would understand that as presented the item had two (!) price tags. It's like the joke, "Last year you claimed to be 25, and this year you claim to be 26, which is it?"

In addition we might turn to page 70 in the BGB and read the paragraph on assaulting Fast vehicles. Apparently Flat Out is the same as Cruising Speed - unless the vehicle is Immobilized.

Wow this is a really easy one guys it says if its immobilized then its an automatic hit does it not? it dont matter if it moved or not the turn before cause its not going anywere now, if its not going anywere now as in its broken and not moving how would you miss?

To the OP just read Nurglitch's post and if anyone else says otherwise then they are simply wrong.

Spetulha,

I think the "yes/no result search" is a clever and very workable way to look at the issue.

Nurglitch,

I don't find ad hominen arguments credible.

Zip Napalm:

Neither do I. Fortunately I didn't offer one.

If you still don't believe that nurglitch is right, or that any confusion is down to sloppy editing (it isn't - just sloppy reading) consider this argument:

This is what the rulebook says:

"Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn ___________Automatic Hit"

This is what it would say if they meant something else:

"Attacking a vehicle that WAS immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn ___________Automatic Hit"

(I know this is the same argument that nurglitch and Bla_Ze made, I'm just rephrsing it. )

I see this as a rule that has two distinct statements in one sentence.

or

Two elements with the qualifier "in its previous turn".

Nope, there's one qualifier with no specific turn mentioned. Immobilized.

And open page 70, Assaulting Fast Vehicles. That should be enough to show how the writers thought this works.

Nurglitch wrote:The chart is used for finding the vehicles current speed.

No it's not.

With the exception of an immobilised vehicle, the chart finds the speed the vehicle moved in it's last turn, nit the vehicle's 'current' speed, since there is no such thing.

It's amusing to see that you think a vehicle being hit both automatically (1+) and on a 4+ is some sort of a problem. It's exactly like worrying that you have to roll btoh a 3+ and a 4+ on one die. Since 4 > 3, a 4+ and a 3+ = 3+ on 1D6.

It's not exactly the same, since an automatic hit doesn't require a roll.


Other than that, it's a fair point, though.

Spetulhu wrote:Nope, there's one qualifier with no specific turn mentioned. Immobilized.

And open page 70, Assaulting Fast Vehicles. That should be enough to show how the writers thought this works.

Hmm.

P. 70 does shed more light on what they were thinking.

Danny Internets wrote:

Colin Sic wrote:Shooting and assaulting don't happen at the exact same time. You shoot the vehicle, it comes to a screeching halt due to immobilisation, you then assault a stopped vehicle. If it wasn't immobilised, you would be assaulting a vehicle that is presently moving..

Unfortunately, this is a game of abstract rules, not reality. The rules don't support this--they present a clear contradiction which no one has been able to address using the rules themselves.

So if the rules are that abstract, if you destroy the vehicle by shooting, you can then assault the wreckage, and you would still need 4+ to hit what you just blew up... Strictly because you did not blow it up on the last player turn, and it moved 12"...

This is silly, it's immobilized. You hit automatically.

Page 70 does indeed shed light. Clearly this is RAI, although not nessecarily RAW. And this is enough for me. Although i know Dakka, clearly not enough for some
Hopefully this is enough for my gaming group. (some are pretty dense though)
Thanks for your input/output

Colin Sic wrote:

This is silly, it's immobilized. You hit automatically.

Considering this is a game where a sword inhabited by a warp demon is preferable to a minigun with explosive rounds, it's not that silly.

Spetulhu wrote:Nope, there's one qualifier with no specific turn mentioned. Immobilized.

And open page 70, Assaulting Fast Vehicles. That should be enough to show how the writers thought this works.

Ah, so you see it as two parallel statements with the same qualifier. That would be "Attacking a vehicle that is immobilized ... in its previous turn" and "Attacking a vehicle that ... was stationary in its previous turn."

One of those sentences follows good grammar. The other does not. Therefore, the conclusion is that, assuming it was edited to be grammatically correct, you analyzed the sentence incorrectly.

Instead, it is two parallel statements in different tenses, sharing one subject. One of the parallel statements has a qualifier. "Attacking a vehicle that is immobilized" and "Attacking a vehicle that was stationary on its previous turn." This method of analyzing the sentence yields grammatically sensible results, and must therefore be assumed to be the correct way to read what was written.

Whether what was written was what was intended is its own issue, but the only way to know that would be to present the matter to the source for a definitive clarification specifically addressing your confusion. In the meantime, I'll lend the benefit of the doubt that the source wrote what it meant to write (or that it meant to write what it wrote, if you prefer).

The question of which of the two conditions (the one we just dissected above, which grants an automatic hit, or the lines about the vehicles non-stationary speed last turn) takes precedence is a legitimate question, however, for which there is no right answer. I believe that the method of taking the first applicable situation arrived at in an ordered reading of the list is a sensible means of resolving the conflicting conditions. Alternatively, one could pose that if the models were to roll, they would need a 4+ to hit based on the second line of the table, but the first line presents a situation in which there is no need to even roll. So I may say I hit automatically, but if I were to roll, I'd need a 4+ -- and so, if I'm attacking, I simply opt not to roll and take that chance.

When it comes down to it unexpectedly in game, however, it's obvious that this is an easy candidate for a roll-off over interpretation. After the game, however, the conclusion that there's no need to roll is the one I would expect most to arrive at.