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.

This came up the other day. I charged a skimmer that had moved over 6", and he said I could only glance it because of that. I'd always played it that that was shooting only, as it's listed in the section for shooting at vehicles. The rule itself however only says hits, and not specifically shooting hits.

I've always played it that way too, aduro.

Some players disagree.

I'd like to point out that no CC weapon has a AP value, so it can't technically penetrate anyway, right?

There are reasons people play the way you and I do.

Aduro: Your opponent is correct. See p.71 of the rulebook, "Armour Penetration in Close Combat". Armour Penetration in Close Combat is worked out as normal, as Shooting.

Stelek wrote:
I'd like to point out that no CC weapon has a AP value, so it can't technically penetrate anyway, right?

I've never thought of it that way. However, that rule only applies to "AP -" weapons, the rulebook is very specific here. Close combat attacks do not have an AP per say, but they are also not AP- and as such are not subject to that rule.

I've always played that skimmers can never be penetrated in any way as long as they are moving over 6" a turn. Quoting the BGB "Any hits that beat the armor value of a mobile skimmer moving more than 6" in it's last movement phase count as glancing hits instead of penetrating hits." The rule is quite clear.

Surprise surprise, Dakkalad is 100% right. Not having an AP is not the same as having AP -.

Nurglitch is right on the original question as per the rulebook.

While I agree that RAW, CC attacks and attached grenades/bombs can only ever glance a fast moving skimmer, I personally hate the rule.

My brain doesn't like the concept; it's already hard to attach a melta bomb. It REALLY shouldn't glance once you've attached the bloody thing. I just think they didn't really think the SMF rule through all the way.

The FAQ is 100% clear on the subject:

if a skimmer that has moved more than 6” in its previous turn suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, from any kind of weapon, both in close combat and from ranged attacks, the hit always counts as a glancing hit.

FAQ or not, the rule book is clear on the issue. If you read the skimmer moving fast rule is says something to the effect of (don't have it here with me now but I looked it up recently)...

All hits against a skimmer that moved over 6" in its previous movement phase are down graded to glancing.

If someone could post the exact wording of the rule, I would appreciate it.

The 2 primary points of interest there are the "All hits" which would cover both shooting and hand to hand attacks. Note: this rule appears in the vehicle section rather than in the shooting or hand to hand sections which might lead one to believe it only applied to one or the other. The other interesting point of note is the fact that it says "previous movement phase". This would mean that if you wanted to "death or glory" a tank shocking skimmer, it wouldn't matter how far it moved in its current movement phase since the skimmer moving fast rule references only the previous movement phase.

Phoenix wrote:
If someone could post the exact wording of the rule, I would appreciate it.

"Any hits that beat the Armor Value of a mobile skimmer moving more than 6" in its last Movement phase count as a glancing hits instead of penetrating hits (69, BGB)."

Also of note, that rule is not found in the "Vehicles and Shooting" section, but rather under the section titled "Skimmers Moving Fast."

Thank you Imriel. Looks like I got the jist of it correct.

Yet again, I answered this question completely and provided exact quotes multiple posts ago. Try reading them.

Dakkaladd wrote:Yet again, I answered this question completely and provided exact quotes multiple posts ago. Try reading them.

Well, actually, you gave a partial answer. Based on your answer, I could say that AP1 hits that match the armor value of the skimmer would count as penetrating. The FAQ fixes that loophole and is needed to have the complete answer.

That would be true, if anywhere in the discussion AP1 came into question. Since it did not, I did not feel it necessary to answer a question that had not been asked.

No, but you were asserting that "skimmers can never be penetrated in any way as long as they are moving over 6" a turn", which your rules quote did not support. Which might be why others felt it necessary to continue posting to reference the FAQ which does cover that..........

And yet still noone posted on or quoted the AP 1 rule. In fact, the only further rules quote made was exactly the same one I had made in my original post.

Oh FFS, you get full brownie points, ok, Dakkalad? Happy now?

Are we really arguing over who gave the better answer? Bottom line: it's been answered. On to the next unbelievably important rules quibble, gentlemen.

The skimmer doesn't even have to be physically moving over 6" in order to get the SMF rule in close combat.

"A skimmer that is not immobilised always counts as moving more than 6" in its previous turn." (BGB p71.)

"Any hits that beat the Armour Value of a mobile skimmer moving more than 6" in its last Movement phase count as glancing hits instead of penetrating hits." (BGB p69.)

Needless to say, my poor Berzerkers don't like this rule. In fact, my poor Berzerkers don't like much at all...

You're quoting that out of context. It immediately follows the table telling you what roll you need to hit in CC, and is under the heading "Hits." There is an implied "for purposes of rolling to hit" there.

I don't really care about brownie points, I was simply pointing out that don mondo did not have a valid point.

Dakkaladd wrote:I don't really care about brownie points, I was simply pointing out that don mondo did not have a valid point.

What? My point about you having failed to answer the question correctly or completely? Fine, here's my valid point. Your quote from the main rulebook did not answer the question correctly or completely. As written, your answer was not just incomplete, it was wrong. That blunt enough for you? You said "skimmers can never be penetrated in any way as long as they are moving over 6" a turn", and your rules quote said "Any hits that beat the armor value of a mobile skimmer moving more than 6" in it's last movement phase count as glancing hits instead of penetrating hits.". How do you get the first bit from that rules quote, since that certainly isn't what it says?

There are several circumstances in which a Skimmer Moving Fast can be penetrated if using ONLY the Main Rulebook quote you provided (even tho you play it otherwise). The AP 1 example I mentioned was one such circumstance (and would be WHY I mentioned it, to point out that your answer was wrong and incomplete.). For a close combat example of an attack that can penetrate a SMF if using only the Main Rules quote you provided, look at Haywire Grenades. Since they use a special game mechanic to penetrate the vehicle and don't "beat the armor value", SMF does not apply and the close combat attacks with Haywire Grenades against SMF can be penetrating. In fact, any weapon that uses a special rule to penetrate a vehicle instead of having to beat the armor value to do so would ignore the SMF rule. So AP 1 hits that matches armor value, Haywire grenades, Wraithcannon, and probably others would all be able to penetrate based on your wrong and incomplete answer.

BUT!! wow, lookie there, we have an FAQ from GW, the one you didn't bother to mention in your answer, that says that all hits against SMF become glancing, regardless of source. So the Main Rules quote that you put up didn't answer the question, right? So the fact that others continued posting was a good thing, since at least one of them referenced the FAQ, right? Yes, someone else did post the same quote you did previously. Ummm, so what? Anyways, you know that I PMed you the other day and offered to continue this discussion in private but seems you would rather air it out here, so here it is.