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.

I'm sure this has been discussed before but the search didn't reveal any results.

If a creature wants to charge a sentinel and kill it that's fine (they are pretty soft and chewy), but I've always thought it was a bit of a gamble since they are almost sure to be penned.  The only reason that it's a gamble is the explosion factor on the penn table.  Even though most things can easily make their armor save there is still a chance that the vehicles explosion will actually wound the attacker(s).

So, the point of this rambling post is shouldn't multiple explosions be applied?  In other words, a monstrous creature scores 3 "exploded!" results on the penn table.  The creature is now subject to 3 rolls of 4 or more to wound with possible saving throw.  I've always assumed that to be the case but I had a game last night and my opponent thought his daemon prince should only be subject to a single possible explosion hit.  Basically he's thinking "It only explodes once right?"

My argument is that if the creature had scored 3 "Immobilized" results he would probably expect the sentinel to be wrecked (per the rulebook relationship for immobilized, weapon destroyed, and destroyed results on page 67).  So, how could his creature immobilize the Sentinel 3 times at once but not cause 3 explosions at once?

What say you Dakkites?

P.S.  I'm an easy going kind of guy (or I'm just easy).  There actually was no argument.  He just stopped me from rolling the three die and said something like "just one explosion counts."  I said something like "Oh, sure.  That's cool" and just rolled the one rather than get into an intent vs RAW debate over a probably non-game affecting thing.

 

You can't crater twice but then again this is 40k.

The way I play it is: I hit the vehicle and roll to pen or glance it.

If I pen I roll each pen individually. Once / if I get a 5 or 6 I stop rolling dice. The vehicle is destroyed no reason to hammer wreckage.

Yep, the rules don't support rolling penetrating hits against wrecks or craters.

Yeah, but all of those hits are simultaneous, right? I would support multiple explosions, representing (in abstract) one BIG explosion.

Interesting.

Pariah:  That's how I have always imagined it.  It's something I've just taken for granted.

the trooper: Do you only roll the die one at a time to avoid this situation, or is it just a beneficial side effect of a way you do things? I only ask because that's exactly how I would suggest it be played. Once a destroyed result is rolled the player should stop rolling. That also gives more of a feeling that the results are happening in succession rather than at the same time.

If players would follow this procedure everything would be fine, but I still have a bit of a problem with it for the resons mentioned above. It makes it seem like a player is specifically ignoring the final steps just to save his own troops from being harmed.

Lowinor: The penetrating hits have already been rolled at the point the results are rolled. If two penetrating hits are scored are two results rolled, or are the number of rolls determined by the results?

Where is it stated the hits are all simultaneous -- from a procedural standpoint, at least?

If you resolve them simultaneously, then you couldn't destroy more than one weapon in a round of fire and two immobilized results wouldn't kill a vehicle due to both cases requiring subsequent results.

Once you resolve the first destroyed or annihilated result, there is no more vehicle to resolve further results against -- you can't resolve penetrating hits against a wreck or crater.

Posted By the_trooper on 01/05/2007 9:09 AM

If I pen I roll each pen individually. Once / if I get a 5 or 6 I stop rolling dice. The vehicle is destroyed no reason to hammer wreckage.

That's the way we play at my FLGS too.  It bothered me at first, because it did look like guys just getting out of having a tank explode on a 6 by stopping on a 4 or 5 ... but hearing the argument here that you can't further damage a wreck makes me feel better about doing it myself

- Boss Salvage

Lowinor: Where is it stated that the hits are happening one after the other?

If possible I would like to limit the scope of this discussion to the scenario of a single unit or model attacking a vehicle (with or without WS) in the Assault phase. I'm not suggesting all shooting during that phase is to be considered simultaneous, or that an entire turn's actions all happen at the same time as they pertain to damage results.

When a unit (or model) strikes in CC though, its attacks are happening simultaneously as everything else during that initiative step right? If the sentinel has the same initiative and it manages to kill it's opponent are the destroyed results against it voided because a wreck cannot engage an enemy? That's not how I read the rules. However, if we accept that the attacks are simultaneous then the hits are simultaneous and the results are simultaneous.

Now, having said that I don't like where this is going. The deeper I look into it the more it appears that multiple "Immobilized" results scored during the same initiative step will not stack since the vehicle was not immobilized before the attacks. I DO NOT believe that was the intention of the writers and I was never trying to suggest that when I started this thread.

The point I am trying to make is simply this: If you scored multiple "Immobilized" results on a vehicle would you expect them to stack? If you answered "Yes" what is the reasoning behind not stacking ANY other result? Please, let's stay away from "So, you must be saying that stunned results stack right?" Even if the book didn't have the note that tells us otherwise there is still only going to be one "next turn? The result doesn't affect the vehicle "The turn after next? It will only affect the next turn.

I think that the assertion that "you can't futher damage a wreck" is an assumption that's hanging this discussion up. You can futher damage a vehicle that has been disabled. For instance, you could hit it again (not knowing the extent of the damage already) puncturing, say, the fuel tank full of highly volatile prometheum.

I always just roll all the pens at once, and then apply the worst result in the case of explosions. If any of the pens cause Annihilation, then that applies (and all other results are ignored); if 'explodes' is te worst result, then the vehicle explodes; etc.

But I don't think that destroying the vehicle on the first hit should prevent subsequent hits from exploding or annihilating it. If that were the case, then passengers could be forcibly disembarked by a penetrating 'weapon destroyed' result, deploy 2" away, and avoid a 1" explosion.

I always treated all attacks that happen on the same initiative as simultaneous. I am aware that nothing in the 'vehicles in assault' specifically talks about using initiative - but the main 'assault' rules instruct us to resolve all attacks that occur at a single initiative step simultaneously. And the 'vehicles in assault' subsection does not instruct us to ignore initiative.

It's a grey area, but I think the best way to handle it is to treat it as a 'normal' assault in terms of when attacks are resolved. Hence, simultaneous attacks unless you're dealing with bioplasma or mace tails...

When shooting/hitting a vehicle in CC I roll all the dice at once for attemping to penetrate and damage.

On page 67 it says "roll a d6 for each shot that glanced or penetrated the vehicle's armrour"

In the unit vs unit style of 4th edition I belive all these shots/hits happen at the same time. Just like if you shot at a squad of marines. Just because you rolled  out of 30 hits10 wounds on a 10 man marine squad doesn't mean you stop rolling to wound with the other 20 dice.

Posted By Pariah Press on 01/05/2007 1:03 PM
I think that the assertion that "you can't futher damage a wreck" is an assumption that's hanging this discussion up. You can futher damage a vehicle that has been disabled. For instance, you could hit it again (not knowing the extent of the damage already) puncturing, say, the fuel tank full of highly volatile prometheum.

Show us, then, the rules that allow penetrating hits to be resolved against wrecks (or craters).

Reality is irrelevant; the rules don't support it.

Posted By Lowinor on 01/05/2007 11:22 AM
If you resolve them simultaneously, then you couldn't destroy more than one weapon in a round of fire and two immobilized results wouldn't kill a vehicle due to both cases requiring subsequent results.

Just to correct myself here -- you could destroy multiple weapons, but not promote a destroyed weapon to an immobilized result.  Sorry

Sounds right to me.

Posted By Lowinor on 01/05/2007 4:33 PM

Posted By Pariah Press on 01/05/2007 1:03 PM
I think that the assertion that "you can't futher damage a wreck" is an assumption that's hanging this discussion up. You can futher damage a vehicle that has been disabled. For instance, you could hit it again (not knowing the extent of the damage already) puncturing, say, the fuel tank full of highly volatile prometheum.

Show us, then, the rules that allow penetrating hits to be resolved against wrecks (or craters).

Reality is irrelevant; the rules don't support it.

On page 67 it says "roll a d6 for each shot that glanced or penetrated the vehicle's armour"

  I didn't mean to imply that the next squad (or initiative step) could further damage an already destroyed vehicle, just that you should apply the damage of all of the attacks that occured simultaneously. 

Lowinor: I want to make sure I understand your stance correctly. Are you saying there are three separate ways to deal with damage results depending on the results themselves? In other words: Immobilized results don't stack because a vehicle cannot be immobilized twice. Furthermore multiple immobilized results occurring during the same initiative step will NOT become weap destroyed for some reason. Weapon Destroyed results WILL stack even when occurring during the same initiative step for some reason. Finally, Destroyed, Explodes, or Annihilated results will NOT stack when occurring during the same initiative step for some reason.

I am confused, but I also have severe brain damage so there is a good chance I have completely misunderstood what you are trying to say.

I do agree though that reality or fluff is irrelevant. The entire game would fall apart if we were to try to apply reality to a game mechanic. In real life when a group of men fire an RPG at a tank made before 1987 and it blows the tracks off of the wheels the tank will become immobile. If the next RPG they fire hits the tracks again the cannon and machine guns will probably not become destroyed just so the units shot won?t be wasted.

Ok, to restate:

IF you resolve all results simultaneously (which you would need to do to allow multiple explosions to happen, as if they are discrete, only the first applies, since you can't resolve a penetrating hit on a crater), Immobilized and Armament Destroyed work differently than are played:

- Any number of Immobilized results (on a mobile vehicle, at least) do the same as a single result: Immobilize the vehicle. If they're resolved simultaneously, then when all of them are resolved, the vehicle is mobile, so the rule about further Immobilized results being converted to Armament Destroyed (or causing the vehicle to be destroyed) doesn't get triggered.

- Armament Destroyed results can destroy any S4 or above weapon on a vehicle, so given enough of them you could strip every S4+ gun on a vehicle in one initiative step -- as which weapon gets destroyed is chosen by the attacker, and he can certainly choose a different weapon for each result -- but they can't be converted to Immobilized (as long as the vehicle had weapons at that initiative step) because when they're all resolved simultaneously, the vehicle has weapons on it, so the rule isn't triggered, and you get multiple Armament Destroyed results destroying the same weapon.

That's pretty much it. I've re-read the relevant rules several times, and the simultaneity bit is about attack resolution, which I don't think mandates simultaneous resolution of AP roll results. It is, if anything, ambiguous, but it just seems to me that handling the results sequentially (and thus only one explosion per vehicle) produces less strange results. I don't, however, think treating some results as simultaneous and some as sequential is a reasonable interpretation of the rules, but house rules are house rules, fundamentally.

I agree. I don't see how the results are any more strange than transferring immobilized results to armament destroyed or vice versa though. It's a game mechanic that may not make sense but that shouldn't surprise any of us by now. My main problem has always been that it seems cheesy to not apply ALL of the explosions just because a player's uber-monster doesn't want to roll any more than one save. If the creature was that important than maybe the vehicle should have been attacked by a lascannon instead of a powerfist. It's the same reason why I wouldn't engage targets in the same room as me with a satchel charge. It'll get the job done but I'll probably be about as happy with the results as the target was.

Aside from my rant though the argument that penetrating hits can't be resolved against wrecks doesn't sit right with me either. It sounds right, but then how could any more than one of the hits be resolved? Units can't target or hit a wreck either, right? So, if we're saying that after rolling a single destroyed result on the table we can stop we should really be saying that EVERY attack made by a unit should be rolled for separately and sequentially. So, the monstrous creature would roll a single dice to hit. Then, if successful, roll strength for that one hit. Finally, the creature would roll the result on the applicable table (if any). As long as the result wasn't a destroyed the creature could roll its next attack starting the cycle over again. That doesn't sound right to me either.

Anyways, it would appear that the RAW supports the simultaneous method resulting in the same scenarios you describe above. I've never seen immobilized or armament destroyed played that way and it would probably get a player a really fun nickname if he tried to enforce that at a store. As Lowinor has stated that should lend some weight to the argument against multiple explosions. However, the fact that the rulebook actually does mention the fact that stunned and shaken results are NOT cumulative would make one think that they would write a similar note for explodes and annihilated results if they where to behave similarly. Wishful thinking right? If we all hold our breaths until the next FAQ GW will probably see a drop in profits since we will all have suffocated before the beginning of the next fiscal year.

First off, strict RAW, I suspect you're right when you say that all damage to a vehicle takes place simultaneously and that excess immobilization results don't lap over to destroy weaons.  I can't confirm it, because I don't have my BGB with me, but I think that you're right.

That being said, I also suspect that the vehicle damage rules are not separate from the basic rules of damaging models, but modifications (either by deletion or by addition) to the basic ruleset.  By that, I mean that because the vehicle damage rules do not address it, the default applies, which is that damage is applied squad by squad when caused by ranged attack, and by initiative step when caused by close combat attack.  Therefore, a single squad cannot generate two vehicle immobilized results and have one of them lap over and destroy a weapon, but a squad that fires subsequently could then generate immobilized results that destroy weapons, and yet another squad could fire and roll an immobilized result that destroys the vehicle.

In practicality, I play the way that has already been described: roll all of the damage results simultaneously and apply all of them.  In the case of multiple vehicle destroyed results, applying the highest die number.

They all count. You can have three explosions on a vehicle that happen at the same time. Why wouldn't you take all three? Yeah it sucks for the attacker, but if he was firing missle launchers instead and the vehicle was surrounded by friendlies, he would be singing a different story.

I have to agree. I actually thought that this wasn't a big enough deal to go on with, but the more I think about it the more cheesy it becomes.

Tiderians last sentence in his post really sort of drove it home for me. When he wrote "applying the highest die number" I'm assuming he meant he would apply ONLY the highest die number. Who makes that call, the attacker or the opponent? That certainly isn't a rule. If we start arbitrarily choosing which results to keep and which ones to throw out can I (as the owner of the target model) choose to negate ones that could harm other friendly troops as well? In other words, 2 explosion results are rolled. Now, the daemon prince is going to be in range no matter what, but I've got friendly troops within 6" of the vehicle. If one of the explosion results is a 4" radius and the other is a 6" radius I should be able to choose the 4" one right? If only one counts who gets to decide which one it is? The more I think about it the more difficult this becomes. It seems much more streamlined to simply apply all of the results and go from there.

If you played where you just applied the highest result, there wouldn't be a 4" and a 6" explosion. There would be one explosion, and one roll.

Yes, but what is your reasoning for using the highest result? There's no rule that says to. So if we're saying that we can pick and choose which result to use then who says it has to be the highest? Is it up to the attacker or the defender to choose which explosion to use? If the attacker chooses to only use one explosion than certainly the defender can choose which one of those to use.

So to re-iterate, if 3 explosions are the results then there is no highest.  There are simply 3 explosions.  The only way we would know which one is the highest (I assume you mean most destructive) we must roll the radius.  The further we go the more complicated this gets.

My apologies. In the last paragraph, I stated the house rule that I have been using. I thought that clear when I posted, but looking back, I realize that it was not.

What I meant is that in the case of multiple vehicle destroyed results, we apply only one. If there are multiple "vehicle explodes" results, then we apply only one "vehicle explodes" result, roll only one die for the detonation radius, and nobody gets to choose "which radius to use" because only one radius is ever rolled.

Once again, this is not RAW applied, this is a house rule that we have used because it makes sense to us (my gaming group.)

Multiple Immobilisations do not count, so I would say multiple explosions of the same type do not count. However, I would allow different types of explosions.

If your opponent has issues, then roll for it.

That's interesting fourganger88. Lowinor and I went through the train of logic earlier in this thread and it appears that by RAW you are correct. However, both of us agreed (I don't want to speak for Lowinor here) that that is NOT the common way of playing it. Again, I have never seen anyone claim that multiple immobilizations don't count even when applied during the same initiative step or a single units shooting, but if your group has accepted a certain play style that is your choice. I have to ask the same question though. Who decides which explosion to use? If the results were 3 of the same explosion would you roll all of the radius' to see how far each of them go before deciding? Why or why not?

Tiderian: That sounds like a fine house rule. My club has always rolled all of the explosion results and applied all of them. That's kind of what started this whole problem for me. It's something I've always taken for granted. When I played an opponent for the first time in a store recently he must have had the opposite view. What I'm trying to figure out is which one of us was right. In other words, which rule interpretation holds more weight?

Since that question is a hard one to answer there is an easier question to fall back on. Would you be willing to play it the opposite way of how you were used to playing it if an opponent asked you to?