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.

Would a skimmer with vectored engines that is immobilized over difficult terrain crash?

Vectored engines allow you to avoid crashing if immobilized without moving, but it says nothing about difficult terrain. So would it be destroyed or not?

This is easy.

Failing a dangerous terrain test for a tank results in an imobilized result at the point the vehicle attempts to enter the terrain.  In the case of a skimmer, they can only voluntarily do this when tank shocking, so it comes up extremely rarely.  Vectored engines state that they counter the imobilized=crashed rule for skimmers moving fast, resulting in a standard imobilize instead.  Therefore, it "soft lands" at the point the skimmer attempted to tank shock into the terrain.

 

Now, if this were to happen in a manner that left the skimmer's rear exit at the edge of a top of a building, the guys inside are probably still hosed as they have no legal place in which to exit in their next move phase.

The problem is that a skimmer always hovers above terrain, and if immobilized will land in the terrain. The vehicle rules specifically state that a skimmer moving fast or that is immobilized over difficult terrain is destroyed. Vectored engines specifically reference that it allows the skimmer to land safely when moving fast, but it does not say anything about being immobilized over difficult terrain from what I can tell. Was wondering if anyone out there thought it did.

Where exactly does it say that a skimmer is destroyed if immobilized over difficult terrain? That would make Tau sensor spines pretty pointless.

In the damage tables under immobilized in the main rulebook.

Skimmers that are immobilized immediately crash, and are destroyed if they moved more than 6" in their last turn, or are over impassible or difficult terrain.

No it comes to a nice soft landing. the vectored engines save the day. And the vehicle lands "as if it had not moved".

Yes, but a skimmer that has not moved,and is immobilized, is destroyed automatically if over impassible or difficult terrain. Vectored engines do not save from that as far as I can tell, they only save from crashing when moving.

Posted By Toreador on 02/26/2007 2:30 PM
Yes, but a skimmer that has not moved,and is immobilized, is destroyed automatically if over impassible or difficult terrain. Vectored engines do not save from that as far as I can tell, they only save from crashing when moving.

Well, then you've answered your own question then, haven't you? For what it's worth, I do think that is the correct interpretation, I just wish the rules were written tighter so as to not require interpreting...

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 02/26/2007 3:34 PM

Posted By Toreador on 02/26/2007 2:30 PM
Yes, but a skimmer that has not moved,and is immobilized, is destroyed automatically if over impassible or difficult terrain. Vectored engines do not save from that as far as I can tell, they only save from crashing when moving.

Well, then you've answered your own question then, haven't you? For what it's worth, I do think that is the correct interpretation, I just wish the rules were written tighter so as to not require interpreting...

I think we can all agree that there are some pretty poorly written rules in 40k, but I really don't see this as being one of them, personally. I think if we just take the time to actually read all of the pertinent areas the answer is actually rather clear (and the opposite to what's been said).


First, the rest of the immobilised rule on pg 67 of the rulebook:

"Skimmers that are immobilised immediately crash, and are destroyed if they moved more than 6" in their last turn, or are over impassible or difficult terrain. Otherwise, they make a forced landing where they are and remain immobilised for the rest of the game, no longer counting as a skimmer."


So a skimmer that is immobilised will "crash" if it either:

A) moved more than 6" in its last turn, or
B) it is over difficult or impassable terrain.

If it doesn't fall under either of those categories it makes a "forced landing" instead.


Now, the Vectored Engine rule (pg 44) states:

"If the vehicle would crash due to being immobilised, it instead makes a forced landing as if it had not moved that turn."


The wording used in the Vectored Engine rule seems to have been very deliberate. It doesn't matter whether the vehicle is crashing because it moved over 6" or because its over terrain, Vectored Engines allows it to make a forced landing instead.

The bit on the end: "as if it had not moved that turn" is essentially extraneous. It certainly cannot logically prove that vectored engines don't  save a skimmer that is immobilised over terrain.


So in short: yes, Vectored Engines can save a skimmer that is over terrain from beind destroyed when it's immobilised.

That last little bit is what got us. It never says anything at all about difficult terrain, and alludes to moving, it can be reasoned either way. Not exactly a clear rule, though if you leave out the last little bit it makes perfects sense that it is saved at all times.

Posted By Toreador on 02/26/2007 8:52 PM
That last little bit is what got us. It never says anything at all about difficult terrain, and alludes to moving, it can be reasoned either way. Not exactly a clear rule, though if you leave out the last little bit it makes perfects sense that it is saved at all times.

Feel free to try to reason it the other way. I do not think it can be logically done.

Please remember that the inclusion of redundant information does not suddenly invalidate other possibilities.

For example if I say:  Shopping in my store on a Mon, Tues or Wed means you get a 30% discount.

Then later I say: purchasing $200+ gets you a 30% discount as if you were shopping on a Monday.

The inclusion of "Monday" in my second statement suddenly doesn't mean that Tuesday and Wednesday no longer offer a discount.


That's what you're trying to say: That some extraneous information on the end suddenly changes what the rules actually say: Vectored Engines turn crashes from immobilzation into forced landings and being immobilised over a piece of terrain is one cause of crashing (and therefore qualifies).

Yep, but you know arguement on the web and during games

I do take the same meaning you do after re-reading the eldar description. Saves it from all crashes and makes it land.

Riddle me this though now. Since if a vectored engines can save a skimmer from landing in terrain, it now stands that it can land in impassable terrain, since it doesn't crash if it lands in impassable either.

Models may not be placed in impassable terrain. So what happens?

Posted By yakface on 02/26/2007 9:14 PM

Feel free to try to reason it the other way. I do not think it can be logically done.

Sure you can! I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation here. That last bit of text tacked on is not redundant. Not in the least. In fact, I'd say that it is illogical to come to any other conclusion than what Toreador came to earlier, and that is that a skimmer is still destroyed automatically if it crashes over difficult terrain, Vectored Engines or no.

Posted By yakface on 02/26/2007 5:05 PM
First, the rest of the immobilised rule on pg 67 of the rulebook:

"Skimmers that are immobilised immediately crash, and are destroyed if they moved more than 6" in their last turn, or are over impassible or difficult terrain. Otherwise, they make a forced landing where they are and remain immobilised for the rest of the game, no longer counting as a skimmer."


So a skimmer that is immobilised will "crash" if it either:

A) moved more than 6" in its last turn, or
B) it is over difficult or impassable terrain.

If it doesn't fall under either of those categories it makes a "forced landing" instead.


Now, the Vectored Engine rule (pg 44) states:

"If the vehicle would crash due to being immobilised, it instead makes a forced landing as if it had not moved that turn."


The wording used in the Vectored Engine rule seems to have been very deliberate. It doesn't matter whether the vehicle is crashing because it moved over 6" or because its over terrain, Vectored Engines allows it to make a forced landing instead.

The bit on the end: "as if it had not moved that turn" is essentially extraneous. It certainly cannot logically prove that vectored engines don't  save a skimmer that is immobilised over terrain.

I agree, the wording here is very deliberate. The salient part here being "as if it had not moved that turn". That last bit is very important as nothing else in the Vectored Engines listing does it say it will prevent a speeder from crashing if immobilized over difficult terrain, just that it will not crash as "as if it had not moved that turn".

So, in review we have the following conditions:

A skimmer that is immobilized will crash and be destroyed if it:
A) moved more than 6" in its last turn, or
B) is over difficult/impassable terrain.

If neither conditions exist, it makes a "forced landing" instead and is immobilized for the remainder of the game. Vectored Engines provides an exemption, stating:

"If the vehicle would crash due to being immobilised, it instead makes a forced landing as if it had not moved that turn."

This only exempts the speeder from condition A) as it makes a force landing as if it had not moved. It states nothing about difficult/impossible terrain, therefore if over such the skimmer will still crash and be destroyed.

If anyone remember what vectored engines did before the new codex this would not be an issue.  The old vectored engines did nothing except protect a skimmer from crashing in difficult terrain. 

So, you have to figure they raised the price and added something, ie not crashing when moving fast, and made the rule jive with the new way they want skimmers to work.

It is safe to err on the side of they way the rules have worked all along if there is nothing that dramatically tells you different.

I would play you can land safely in difficult terrain.  Just as vectored engines have been doing for eldar skimmers for most of a decade.

Wulfy

And actually, after re-reading the sections I am agreeing with nyarlathotep667. I am so easy....

Skimmers that are immobilized immediately crash and are destroyed if they moved more than 6" in their last turn.
Skimmers that are immobilized immediately crash and are destroyed if they are over impassable or difficult terrain.

"If the vehicle would crash due to being immobilized, it instead makes a forced landing as if it had not moved that turn."

If it makes a forced landing as if it had not moved that turn, and still lands in impassable or difficult terrain, the previous quote states that will destroy it.
Since it can never make a force landing in such terrain, whether it moved or not, the vectored engines should not save it.

The first half tells you when it happens, the second part tells you what happens. So it get its immobalised in diffecult terrain, which would cause it to crash due to an imobilized result trigering the rule, and resulting in it landing as if it didn't move that turn. the first half gives no mention of why it would crash, and the second part doesn't modiffy the first half.

You still can never make a forced landing in difficult or impassable terrain without being destroyed, so you could never make a landing in difficult or impassable terrain as if making a forced landing.

Posted By Toreador on 02/28/2007 9:54 AM
You still can never make a forced landing in difficult or impassable terrain without being destroyed, so you could never make a landing in difficult or impassable terrain as if making a forced landing.

That is completely incorrect.

There is absolutely no part of the rules that say a skimmer may not make a forced landing into difficult terrain. The rules state that a skimmer immobilised over difficult terrain crashes. The VE rules modify this to say that it makes a forced landing instead.


Look:  There are two options when a skimmer gets immobilised. Either it crashes or it makes a forced landing. There are multiple reasons as to why a skimmer may crash, but once a rule says that the skimmer may make a forced landing, it doesn't matter how the skimmer makes a forced landing, if it does so it isn't crashing.

Toreador & Nyarly: Neither of you have still made a logical argument as to why the way the skimmer makes it's forced landing has any impact on the fact that it is actually allowed to make a forced landing (and not crash). Just to put my money where my mouth is, here is the arguement you are trying to debunk:


P1. A skimmer that is immobilised while over difficult/impassable terrain or that moved over 6" in it's previous turn crashes and is destroyed.
P2. A skimmer that is immobilised while not over difficult/impassable terrain or that moved 6" or less in it's previous turn makes a forced landing instead of crashing and being destroyed.
P3. The Vectored Engine rules state that a Skimmer which crashes due to being immobilised makes a forced landing instead.

Conclusion: A Skimmer with Vectored Engines which crashes due to being immobilised (for any reason) makes a forced landing instead and is not destroyed.


Now, my argument does not include the bit about 'as if it had not moved',  and that's because it isn't relevant to making a logical argument. How the skimmer makes a forced landing doesn't matter, since once the rules state the vehicle gets to make a forced landing we know it isn't crashing.

The rule could state that the skimmer makes a forced landing 'as if in a pile of kittens' or 'as if it moved 30 inches' and it wouldn't matter (although the latter statement would certainly confuse players). The point is, whatever the intent of the statement tacked on the end, it isn't relevant to what the rule actually says.


Oh and Toreador:

All impassable terrain means is that it "prevents all movement through it", so if a skimmer w/ VE is allowed to move 'over' said terrain and is then immobilised, by the RAW I don't see any reason why it wouldn't just land in the impassable terrain.

Of course, that is just the RAW and I would certainly choose to play that a Skimmer immobilised over impassable terrain would be destroyed.

Posted By yakface on 02/28/2007 1:08 PM

P1. A skimmer that is immobilised while over difficult/impassable terrain or that moved over 6" in it's previous turn crashes and is destroyed.
P2. A skimmer that is immobilised while not over difficult/impassable terrain or that moved 6" or less in it's previous turn makes a forced landing instead of crashing and being destroyed.
P3. The Vectored Engine rules state that a Skimmer which crashes due to being immobilised makes a forced landing instead.

Conclusion: A Skimmer with Vectored Engines which crashes due to being immobilised (for any reason) makes a forced landing instead and is not destroyed.


Now, my argument does not include the bit about 'as if it had not moved',  and that's because it isn't relevant to making a logical argument. How the skimmer makes a forced landing doesn't matter, since once the rules state the vehicle gets to make a forced landing we know it isn't crashing.

The rule could state that the skimmer makes a forced landing 'as if in a pile of kittens' or 'as if it moved 30 inches' and it wouldn't matter (although the latter statement would certainly confuse players). The point is, whatever the intent of the statement tacked on the end, it isn't relevant to what the rule actually says.

Except that you can't just ignore the "as if hat not moved" bit, as it is part of the very rule we are arguing over. If it didn't have anything to do with it, why have that qualifying statement tacked on? Going strictly by the RAW, it must be taken into consideration, and if done so, we have this:

P1. A skimmer crashes and is destroyed if immobilized while moving <6" in it's previous turn.
P2. A skimmer crashes and is destroyed if immobilized while over difficult or impassable terrain..
P3. Vectored Engines allows a Skimmer that crashes due to being immobilized to  make a forced landing as if it had not moved that turn.

Conclusion: A Skimmer with Vectored Engines that crashes due to being immobilized makes a forced landing instead and is not destroyed as if it had not moved that turn but if it is over difficult or impassible terrain it will still crash and be destroyed.

The thing here is we are not the ones making assumptions nor are we ignoring a phrase in the written rule (much less in the pertinent sentence). I didn't write the rules and I haven't a clue what the intention of the designers were, if they meant to restrict this further from the v3 Vectored Engines or what, but I do know this interpretation breaks the fewest rules and is the least advantageous. 

Posted By yakface on 02/28/2007 1:08 PM

Of course, that is just the RAW and I would certainly choose to play that a Skimmer immobilised over impassable terrain would be destroyed.

And why not difficult terrain as well? To be honest, in actual table play I'll go with whatever the local flow is on it while grousing about how poorly written the rules are, something we all can agree on, yes?

Hello, I've read this discussion with interest, and I think I couple of pertinent points in support of yakface's position have not been addressed.

First off, "crash" is being misused; it is not a synonym with destroyed!  Per the rulebook, a skimmer which becomes immobilized immediately crashes.  This crash results either in its destruction (if it moved more than 6" or is over difficult or impassable terrain), or a forced landing.

With this definition in mind, the Vectored Engines description takes on a slightly different character: when immobilized, it does not crash.  So, it's not just that it's not destroyed, it actually skips the pre-requisite for being destroyed, and does so in the general case, regardless of movement or position.  Per the rulebook, you only check movement and position in the case of a "crash".

This brings me to the "forced landing as if it had not moved" clause.  Per the rulebook, a forced landing never results in a vehicle being destroyed; it must "crash" to be eligible to be destroyed from immobilization.  I think this clause is descriptive, not restrictive, because it makes sense as a descriptive clause and does not make sense as a restrictive clause.  It is insufficiently descriptive - a forced landing has different pre-requisites than simply not moving - but that's still a valid sentence.

In contrast, the claim that it means it is destroyed is not a valid logical construction - a "forced landing" over difficult terrain may normally be ruled out by the "crash", but the consequences of the forced landing itself do not include destruction.

Logically, we must assume that it always makes the forced landing. Yes it says as if it had not moved, but it has no other qualifiers. To assume that terrain has an effect on it is just that, an assumption. All we can see from the rule is that rather then crash it simply makes a forced landing. Whether the additional statement tacked onto the end means anything cannot be determined because it seems like and incomplete thought.
Aztralwolf