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.

A Hive Tyrant and a Carnifex both assault a land raider that moved 12" in its previous turn. The Hive Tyrant, therefore, requires 6's to hit, but is able to immobilize the land raider. When it comes time for the Carnifex to attack, does he hit automatically because it is an immobilized vehicle, or does he also need 6's? As a follow-up to that, are there even initiative steps when you assault vehicles without a WS? Could the Tyranid player elect to work out the assault with the Carnifex first, and then do the Hive Tyrant second? - Oaka

Posted By Oaka on 07/12/2006 8:29 AM
A Hive Tyrant and a Carnifex both assault a land raider that moved 12" in its previous turn. The Hive Tyrant, therefore, requires 6's to hit, but is able to immobilize the land raider. When it comes time for the Carnifex to attack, does he hit automatically because it is an immobilized vehicle, or does he also need 6's? As a follow-up to that, are there even initiative steps when you assault vehicles without a WS? Could the Tyranid player elect to work out the assault with the Carnifex first, and then do the Hive Tyrant second? - Oaka

If memory serves (which it might not, so go check the BBB), there's your answer right there.

All that matters (if memory serves) is if the vehicle moved in it's last turn. 

Nope, Ki.

The book specifies that you auto-hit a vehicle without a WS if it didn't move last turn or is immobilized.

The only possible reason to include that rule is to cover the situation where the vehicle moved last turn and is then immobilized before it's next movement phase.

Initiative is not a factor in the Assaulting a vehicle without a WS rules, so there doesn't really seem to be anything preventing you from resolving the Assaults in whatever order you want. Although from a "fluffy" point of view you'd probably keep more friends if you Attack with the higher Initiative creatures first (it makes sense).

So the answer is that the Carnifex would indeed auto-hit the vehicle if the Tyrant first immobilized it.

 

Ah well, that's what I get for not bringing my rulebook here to WY when I moved.

Thanks for clearing up the first part, Yak.

As for the second part, the 'Nid player was trying to do some quick math in his head and he claimed that it would be an advantage if the Carnifex goes first, because it had the same chance of rolling a 6 to hit as the Hive Tyrant, but if it did roll a 6 then it had a greater chance of stunning or immobilizing the land raider than the Hive Tyrant had, and he wanted the second attacker to hit automatically.

I never checked the math, but it seems like a legit tactic to me if it indeed is an advantage.

- Oaka

I think it would be a legit tactic as long as each attack is from a separate model/squad. Both the Carnifex and HT are individual models. They each charge the vehicle during the assault phase. They each resolve their attacks separately. I don't see any reason the attacking player could not chose which model attacks first. My answer would be different if you had a squad with a character and wanted to use his WS to attack first (with the intent to immobilize so the rest of the squad can auto-hit) even though his initiative is lower than the rest of the squad. In this case, I would ask that the squad attacks in initiative order.

You don't get to choose who goes first, if they both charge on the same round the fight including all participants goes in initiative order so the Hive Tyrant will always be going first.

The argument, Snooggums, is that due to the specific rules for fighting a vehicle with no WS, it would not be a single assault involving a land raider, carnifex and hive tyrant, but rather two separate assaults: land raider and carnifex; land raider and hive tyrant.  The player is allowed to work out separate assaults in whatever order he chooses.

- Oaka

How about for vehicles with ws. Let's say you have a squad of striking scorpions with an exarch and they all have haywire grenades. If the exarch manages to get a 6 and immoblize the walker does the rest of the squad then use ws to hit it?

"So the answer is that the Carnifex would indeed auto-hit the vehicle if the Tyrant first immobilized it."

their attacks aren't treated as simultaneous?

i think it "could" mean if it didn't move the previous turn or was immobilized "before the turn started turn".

Fenrik wrote:
How about for vehicles with ws. Let's say you have a squad of striking scorpions with an exarch and they all have haywire grenades. If the exarch manages to get a 6 and immoblize the walker does the rest of the squad then use ws to hit it?

Assaults against vehicles with a WS use normal Initiative values to determine who strikes first. The rules say as much.

Alarming Rick wrote:
their attacks aren't treated as simultaneous?

i think it "could" mean if it didn't move the previous turn or was immobilized "before the turn started turn".

Huh? What the heck are you saying?

Actually, there are two different units assaulting the land raider: the Hive Tyrant; the Carni. There is no initiative to worry about. Resolve one assault before the other. In this case, the HT assaulted first and immobilised the land raider. The Carni's assult is now resolved with the lr now immobilised, ergo auto-hit for the Carni.

Posted By Oaka on 07/12/2006 1:42 PM

The argument, Snooggums, is that due to the specific rules for fighting a vehicle with no WS, it would not be a single assault involving a land raider, carnifex and hive tyrant, but rather two separate assaults: land raider and carnifex; land raider and hive tyrant.  The player is allowed to work out separate assaults in whatever order he chooses.

- Oaka

This thread is pretty horribly named if you knew that ahead of time.

"Huh? What the heck are you saying?"

disregard, brainfart warning.

Posted By snooggums on 07/12/2006 12:05 PM
You don't get to choose who goes first, if they both charge on the same round the fight including all participants goes in initiative order so the Hive Tyrant will always be going first.

No, they are separate units. You can choose which assault to resolve in any order you like.

Surely, they are both attacking the vehicle at the same time? ie. in the same assualt phase? Therefore they would both be needing sixes?
The vehicle moved more than 6" in its movement phase so ALL attacks directed at it in the subsequent assault phase would be resolved for the vehicle moving more than 6"?

I think your arguments would hold better if the assault moves were made individually before resolving to hits, but this is not how the turn sequence evolves. That is all pieces are moved into assault before to hits are resolved. There is no initiative order in this example. So, similtaneous action is easily inferred.

I guess this is one of the problems with trying to talk about an animated assualt on a moving vehicle that uses static models taking turns, to represent the action?

Bring on the holographic projectors putting the battle onto the desktop in realtime.....

?Posted By GavDorro on 07/22/2006 10:42 PM
Surely, they are both attacking the vehicle at the same time? ie. in the same assualt phase? Therefore they would both be needing sixes?
The vehicle moved more than 6" in its movement phase so ALL attacks directed at it in the subsequent assault phase would be resolved for the vehicle moving more than 6"?

I think your arguments would hold better if the assault moves were made individually before resolving to hits, but this is not how the turn sequence evolves. That is all pieces are moved into assault before to hits are resolved. There is no initiative order in this example. So, similtaneous action is easily inferred.

I guess this is one of the problems with trying to talk about an animated assualt on a moving vehicle that uses static models taking turns, to represent the action?

Bring on the holographic projectors putting the battle onto the desktop in realtime.....

Separate close combats are not simultanious. Read pg. 36.

Phausi "Separate close combats are not simultanious. Read pg. 36."

Yes. Page 36 details the general rules for carrying out an assault.

Now read page 71, as we were discussing assaulting a VEHICLE that has moved more than 6" in its previous turn not assaulting other units with WS. The distinction being made is that initiative does not come into it.....Nor is it mentioned under the assaulting a vehicle section. OK?

Refer to the box on the right of the page titled - "Target D6 roll needed".

As I see it. The attacking player could save some game time by rolling both attacks simultaneously anyway (using different dice) and then roll any glancing hits that result?

Reread page 71 GavDorro. The table is for ONE unit assaulting a vehicle. So the unit (HT) consults the table on page 71 to see what is needs to hit the vehicle. In this case, a 6 is needed since the HT is assaulting a vehicle that moved more than 6" in the previous turn. The HT immobilized the land raider. The Carni now assaults the land raider thus consults the table. The table states vehicles that have not moved or are immobilzed are automaitcly hit.

Hey Avatar - long time, no type.....(if I remember rightly, it was the lord reserrecting within 1" of enemy model?)

Anyway....
I went back and reread it again.
Quote from "the book" :
"attacking a vehicle that was immobilised or stationary in its PREVIOUS turn" (my emphasis).

So, say you do roll the attacks seperately. You immobilise the vehicle with the first unit. Do your check with the second unit.
Was it immobilised in its PREVIOUS turn? Answer : No.
Did it move more than 6 inches PREVIOUS turn? Answer: Yes.

You still need sixes to hit. The vehicle was NOT immobilised in it's PREVIOUS turn?

The important thing here is that initiative is not taken into account as there is no WS on the vehicle. As I said previously, I believe that this makes it very easy to argue that the attacks are taking place simultaneously as a result.

""attacking a vehicle that was immobilised or stationary in its PREVIOUS turn" (my emphasis)."


so i wasn't brain farting?

Posted By alarmingrick on 07/23/2006 8:49 PM
""attacking a vehicle that was immobilised or stationary in its PREVIOUS turn" (my emphasis)."


so i wasn't brain farting?

Dunno.  You still might have.  That would explain the smell. 

New but connected question

If fighting a dreadnaught and you destroy its claw at init 5 does it swing at str 6 non-power weapon when it swings at init 4?

Gav, Gav, Gav, if you are going to quote a rule please, please quote it correctly otheriwse you come off sounding like an idiot.

The EXACT quote from the BGB, page 71 is

Attacking a vehicle that is immoblised or was stationary in its previous turn........D6 roll needed ......Automatic hit

So Gav, the HT immoblised the land raider. The Carni now hits the land raider automaticly since it IS immoblised, per the RAW.

Yes Avatar

I read it same.....

You have typed it same......

Now read what you have typed paying particular attention to the last 2 words in the sentence "previous turn"......

As I keep saying, the immobilised result did not occur in the previous turn !! It occured in the current turn......

There is a big difference.

And now we begin the Grammar Circles portion of YMDC.


That sentence can be broken down to mean either:

1) Hit automatically if immobilized.
2) Hit automatically if it didn't move in it's previous turn.

Or

1) Hit automatically if immobilized in it's previous turn.
2) Hit automatically if it didn't move in it's previous turn.



Using the laws of grammar and the english language... both are equally correct in interpretation.


Personally? I think it's the second interpretation, mainly because (if you guys posted it EXACTLY as it's printed) there's no comma between the 2 portions of the sentence.  Meaning "in it's previous turn" applies to both portions equally.  But that's just me. YMMV of course.

That sentence can be broken down to mean either:

1) Hit automatically if immobilized.
2) Hit automatically if it didn't move in it's previous turn.

Or

1) Hit automatically if immobilized in it's previous turn.
2) Hit automatically if it didn't move in it's previous turn.



Using the laws of grammar and the english language... both are equally correct in interpretation.

Actually, if they meant the second they should have said "that WAS immoblised or was stationary in its previous turn"

as is i think the first is more accurate.

I agree that the first interpretation is correct according to English grammar. No comma, necessary.

Hit automatically if
a) the vehicle IS immobilized (refering to current state)
or b) the vehicle WAS stationary in its previous turn.

If you try and write the sentence leaving out the second condition, and still come to the first interpretation you get:
"Hit automatically if the vehicle IS stationary in its previous turn." Which makes no sense. So it must be the second interpretation, which does make grammatical sense.

In other words: if it IS immobilized, it doesn't matter when it BECAME immobilized.

This actually came up in a game where my Chimera was shot in the rear by some splinter cannons, immobilizing it. The Dracon and his unit then charged in, hitting automatically with all their attacks, as the Chimera fit the criterion of being currently immobilized. The Agonizer tore off the turret and stunned the crew.

The grammar seemed pretty clear cut to me, and it was my Chimera!

Hey, lookit that.

Is and Was.




My bad. Grammar supports the argument that init matters.

Hi Strangelooper

I understand what you are saying....
I'm not sure whether I agree with the interpretation ? But I definitely can see both sides of the argument. Thankyou for making your case a bit clearer to me....(I am a little thick sometimes and people sometimes have to talk a little slower to me before I understand)

Grammar aside, your example isn't exactly the same as being discussed. Your example involves a shooting phase and an assault phase. The example first given was an assault phase only with no real  initiative order? So I guess the argument really revolves around whether the assualt is happening simultaneously or not?

If the action is occuring in the same assualt phase (as it is) and there is no required initiative order then my interpretation maybe correct.

However, if we say that initiative order IS required and that the strikes are not happening simultaneously, then my interpretation is clearly incorrect.

Funny how the same sentence can be interpreted so differently, yes?
But the example given is really the only instance (that I can think of) where this syntax causes a (potential) problem.

Must admit, that I am willing to concede my initial interpretation is wrong and I would probably not argue with someone assaulting this way and claiming immobilised......But the wording of the vehicle assault rules would still be playing on me and I wouldn't be 100% happy about it.