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.

On turn one, your wave serpent moved 12" to fire its weapon.

On turn two, you realize how pathetic bright lances are at actually killing vehicles, so you decide to ram. You get a nice str 10 ram against the enemy battlewagon (hah, no KFF for you!) and the battlewagon is destroyed. However, the str 10 hit that your wave serpent receives results in an immobilized result.

Is your wave serpent:

1) Destroyed, you were immobilzed while moving flat-out

2) Simply immobilized because you didn't move flat-out in the previous movement phase.

Rules state that a Vehicle that has moved Flat put in its Previous turn. Not the turn it is in, but its PREVIOUS turn.

Therefore, if you move Flat out and somehow become Immobilised, you stay Immobilised, not destroyed.

Of course the funny thing is that if in the next turns shooting phase if you get shot at an Immobilised WILL result in destroyed results, as you moved flat out in its previous turn

I voted I would play it as destroyed, because I believe there is clear intent for that, and the poll asked how I would play it, not what I thought the RAW was.

This is one of those where I think the RAW is clear, but written poorly and does not accommodate for the situation described. The RAI is clear (to me) that it should be destroyed. I wouldn't object or be upset by someone saying it's immobilized, as that is correct by RAW in my opinion, but those are the people I would not be offering a house rule to allow their Banshee Masks to negate the cover assault penalty, as an example.

Well, whenever I start a "how will you play it" thread I'm usually bringing up situations where the RAW results in funky things.

The problem here is that while GW allows plenty of opportunities for things to immobilize themselves in their own turn, they really didn't write any rules to cover it.

I voted yes. The RaW is clear, but I also think that the RaI is too. I wouldn't really have a problem with anyone that wanted to play it the other way.

Wow, I am the only one to vote for "play the Game by the rules."

Looks like I am the only Warhammer 40,000 player here then

Gwar! wrote:Wow, I am the only one to vote for "play the Game by the rules."

Looks like I am the only Warhammer 40,000 player here then

But you also quoted a rule wrong:

Page 71 says, "a skimmer that is not immobilized and has moved flat out in its last movement phase counts as obscured..."

I would certainly raise an eyebrow if my skimmer-happy opponent claimed to just be immobilized by said result, but I would probably let them do it. If I were in control of the skimmer I would wreck it because its clearly the way the rule was intended.

I see no quoting a rule wrong?!?!!!??! Thanks for that. Been feeling really really sick last few days, Flu like symptoms. In bed on the Laptop actually. Going to Docs tomorrow cause I am worried I have Piggy Floo ;(

Gwar! wrote:Wow, I am the only one to vote for "play the Game by the rules."

The poll wasn't,"What's the ridiculous RaW rule", the poll was," How will you play it." We're voting how we'll play it.

Gwar! wrote:Looks like I am the only Warhammer 40,000 player here then

Man, if only there was some rule that said it's okay to use the rules as mere guidelines. Oh yeah, TMIR. I guess we're all still playing 40k. Unless following the rules isn't playing 40k.

But what you are doing is Abusing TMIR in order to fundamentally change the balance of the game.

Of course, TMIR also says that I have to have fun, and I have fun by actually playing the game by the rules. Or are you suggesting I am a heartless bastard who should be thrown to the Lions for wanting to actually play by the rules without having to deal with someone screaming "TMIR LETS ME WIN ON A 1+" every 6 seconds?

Gwar! wrote:But what you are doing is Abusing TMIR in order to fundamentally change the balance of the game.

I see no abuse of TMIR. I see pair of players using TMIR in order to slighly improve (in their eyes) the game of Warhammer 40k. I fail to see how changing the way skimmers react to being immobilized is a fundamental change to the balance of the game.

Gwar! wrote:Of course, TMIR also says that I have to have fun, and I have fun by actually playing the game by the rules. Or are you suggesting I am a heartless bastard who should be thrown to the Lions for wanting to actually play by the rules without having to deal with someone screaming "TMIR LETS ME WIN ON A 1+" every 6 seconds?

Noone ever said your way of playing was worse. I merely said it wasn't better or more valid.

The fact that I am not using a Single rule as a crutch to change whatever I don't like kind of Implies that My way IS more valid.

Gwar! wrote:The fact that I am not using a Single rule as a crutch to change whatever I don't like kind

Changing a Single rule so that it makes more sense and flows better is hardly just going around arbitrarily changing rules. The rules are clear that players have the ability to change rules to make 40k more enjoyable. Maybe you don't like it, but the RaW is clear.

Gwar! wrote:My way IS more valid.

Why? Both methods are still games of 40k, both still following the rules.

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The fact that I am not using a Single rule as a crutch to change whatever I don't like kind

Changing a Single rule so that it makes more sense and flows better is hardly just going around arbitrarily changing rules. The rules are clear that players have the ability to change rules to make 40k more enjoyable. Maybe you don't like it, but the RaW is clear.

Ya know what? The RaW is clear here too. The only reason to change it is because you want an advantage (your opponents skimmer being destroyed), not out of some sense of Honour or crap like that.

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:My way IS more valid.

Why? Both methods are still games of 40k, both still following the rules.

I have to admit, this is becoming a "pick on Gwar!" session, which is kind of lame.

Even though I'll generally play it that my own skimmer would be destroyed in this situation, if my opponent is using skimmers as well and wants to play it by the rules, it would be bad sportsmanship for me to insist that the game be played by my own version of the rules, rather than what's written quite clearly in the rulebook.

If, on the other hand, we discuss ahead of time and want to play by a variant rule, IMO that is still "Warhammer 40k."

Gwar! is a good troll.

willydstyle wrote:I have to admit, this is becoming a "pick on Gwar!" session, which is kind of lame.

Luve ya too sugarbuns

willydstyle wrote:Even though I'll generally play it that my own skimmer would be destroyed in this situation, if my opponent is using skimmers as well and wants to play it by the rules, it would be bad sportsmanship for me to insist that the game be played by my own version of the rules, rather than what's written quite clearly in the rulebook.

If, on the other hand, we discuss ahead of time and want to play by a variant rule, IMO that is still "Warhammer 40k."

It's Warhammer 40k with extra bitz. But I digress. The only time I personally allow any deviation from RaW is when a situation has no clear RaW. This is not one of them.

willydstyle wrote:Gwar! is a good troll.

I prefer to think of myself as a Public Servant. What use would rules debates be if I wasn't here being right all the time and taking the anger that would be directed at other people who are less deserving

I mean: I am not a toll and I am gonna be all liek supr srs nao and cawl the modz on joo!

Im going with GWAR on this one. After reading the rules and any an all possible loopholes. Its very clear.
-PREVIOUS TURN-.... This set of words clearly defines the scope of effects.

Again.. GWAR is right...

I'm just going to fire my own personal RAI gun in here and say:
The game designers did not foresee the issue whereby someone could immobilise themselves in their own movement phase.
Perhaps in a revision of 40k rules it would be prudent for developers to insert that clause.

Although, I don't know the minds of the developers and I'm possibly completely wrong and they intended some vehicles to exist in some kind of temporal rift.

RAW is clear, and nonsensical .

Trasvi wrote:I'm just going to fire my own personal RAI gun in here and say:
The game designers did not foresee the issue whereby someone could immobilise themselves in their own movement phase.
Perhaps in a revision of 40k rules it would be prudent for developers to insert that clause.

Although, I don't know the minds of the developers and I'm possibly completely wrong and they intended some vehicles to exist in some kind of temporal rift.

RAW is clear, and nonsensical .

Ummmm... except for ramming and ending movement in area terrain, or immobilized results form Death or Glory... all of which are pretty common occurrences. You might be correct that they did not forsee those issues... but that's extremely poor game design.

I voted 1.

The RAW is indeed clear... but in my opinion, as others have mentioned, was most likely written without the skimmer being immobilised in its own turn in mind. Because, frankly, as is it simply doesn't make any sense.

I'm more than happy to ignore RAW (assuming my opponent agrees) where I feel that there's a better way to play it.

Reminds me of the old Crystal Targeting Matrix ignoring smoke launchers, because those stated that damage done in the enemy shooting phase got altered, not shooting in general, and as we all know the CTM happened in the movement phase.

I see it having such little impact on a game, and happening so infrequently, that I'll let them do as they like. If they turboboost over difficult terrain, roll the 1, and try to set their skimmer down, fine. If they declare it dead and remove it, fine. If the game is so down to the wire that such a thing is vital, then I screwed up somewhere before then.