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.

If a vehicle has not moved or is immobilized, you hit it automatically in CC. If its moved in the previous turn, you hit on either 4's or 6's depending on the speed. What if it has moved in the previous turn and is immobilized? Like if it moved, then you immobilize it with shooting before assaulting it. Which takes priority?

You hit automatically. Think of it as satisfying both criteria, you both hit automatically AND hit on a 4+/6. Since you hit automatically, the dice roll is just a moot point.

To continue, if you immobilize it early in the inititive order, everthing below auto-hits.

Yes, you hit automatically. Remember that this does not apply for walkers.

I believe the rules are such that you never need to "satisfy both criteria"; I believe the immobilized exception is consistently presented.

Gwar! wrote:the dice roll is just a moot point.

Bah!


Sorry.

kirsanth wrote:

Gwar! wrote:the dice roll is just a moot point.

Bah!


Sorry.

Oi, I was using it correctly!

"What if it has moved in the previous turn and is immobilized? Like if it moved, then you immobilize it with shooting before assaulting it. Which takes priority? "

You would not hit this vehicle automatically.

The rule very clearly states if it moved in the previous turn you do not hit automatically. This being one of those typical poorly worded rules that GW seems to specialize in can be and often is the cause of considerable confusion.
The whole debate really hinges on what is meant by "previous turn"?
To clarify this all of the GW employess at all 5 local area stores like to re-phrase the rule this way to clarify it.
"If the vehicle moved in the previous movement phase you do not auto hit."
When stated this way it is clear that in the game scenario stated by the original poster the vehicle would not be auto hit since it moved in the previous movement phase.

Let's look at another scenario.

Top of turn 3 the Necron player moves his monilith.
The Necron player continues with the remainder of his turn three.

We are now at the bottom or SM half of turn 3.
The SM move.
In the shooting phase the Necron players Monolith is immobilized.
In the assault phase of turn three the SM move in with an Ironclad dreadnought in hopes of destroying the Monolith.

The question is does the Monolith count as having moved since it was immobilized in the SM shooting phase? The answer is yes it does count as moving since it was moved in the Necron players previous movement phase. Being relatively new to the game(2 years) does not give me as wide a range of experiences as many of you, however this is how the rule has been appiled at all of the tournaments and game days I have been to here in my local area.

G12

Graphics, I am afraid you are incorrect. Yes it counts as having moved, but it is also immobilised. Buy not hitting automatically, you are breaking the rule that states "Is hit automatically if Immobilised."

Therefore, they only way to deal with it without breaking any rules is to say that it is both hit automatically and hit on a 4+/6.

Furthermore, what your local GWs do is utterly inconsequential and I would respectfully ask you do not ever bring it up in a rules debate again.

Page 63 of the main rule book, full edition, first column, first diagram;

"Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn. Automatic hit"

Note that this is also in the same diagram that describes hitting vehicles that have moved.

Although I find it folly, the rules seem to be pretty clear about this. Yes it moved in the previous player movement phase, however now it is immobilised. It would not make much sense to mention this if it had been immobilised in turn one (now turn three), as the vehicle would obviously be stationary this turn. Since it is NOW immobile, despite having moved, it is hit on the auto.

Personally, if I wrote the rules, it should still be rolled for. One can imagine it is slewing to a halt, crashing to the ground, or throwing sections of track or armor every which way as it grinds to a halt, making it difficult or hasty to attack. The current way implies that there should be no difference if the vehicle doesn't move next turn, but that assumption shouldn't be getting made. So for consistency I would prefer it be rolled for. But I do not have control over the current rules.

The rule states that if the vehicle did not move last turn OR “is” immobilized (present tense), you hit it automatically. If either condition applies, it’s an auto-hit.

Skinnattittar wrote:So for consistency I would prefer it be rolled for. But I do not have control over the current rules.

Now you see, I would argue that because it fulfils both Criteria, it is rolled for, it just hits automatically as well

That's one of the funny things about English though. How do you parse that previous sentence:

Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn. Automatic hit.

Is it :

Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or (was stationary in its previous turn). Automatic hit

Or is it:

Attacking a vehicle that is (immobilised or was stationary) in its previous turn. Automatic hit

Its the same wording, but by grouping the conditions, you completely alter the meaning. I'm not an expert in English by any means, and being a Comp Sci person I think makes me overanalyse human language, but I could take that either way.

The first way implies that if it is currently immobilised or was previously stationary then it is an auto hit, while the second way implies that if it was previously made immobile or was previously stationary then it is an auto hit. Thinking about it, if it were the second possibility, it would have to had been made immobile during the opponent's previous turn, which seems very impractical to say the least. I tend to agree with Gwar! that the first interpretation is the proper one, however, the grinding to a halt description makes more sense to me.

It is the first one.

daedalus wrote:Or is it:

Attacking a vehicle that is (immobilised or was stationary) in its previous turn. Automatic hit

For that parsing to work, both variations surrounding the “or” would have to be grammatically correct on their own. Try breaking it down.

“Attacking a vehicle that is immobilized in its previous turn”. Nope; doesn’t work. Conflicting past and present tenses.

How about “Attacking a vehicle that is was stationary in its previous turn”? Nope, that doesn’t work grammatically either. "is was" is also a redundant conflict of tenses.

The only parsing that works within English is “attacking a vehicle that is immobilized” and “attacking a vehicle that was stationary in its previous turn”. See how nicely those work when you remove the “or” and read them independently?

Gwar
Excuse me for doubting your word on these things, what a fool am I.

Now to this.
"Furthermore, what your local GWs do is utterly inconsequential and I would respectfully ask you do not ever bring it up in a rules debate again. "
You can count on the fact that I will bring them up again and here is why.
First the managers of the 5 local stores in my area have a combined total of more than 60 years of 40k experience, while this does not make them right in all situations it is still a significant body of knowledge and it should not be discarded by you or anyone else simply because of who they are.

Next for the overwhelming majority of the people that play the game of 40K their local GW store and it's employees are the primary source of answers for rules debates and that all by itself makes them a valid source to quote here or anywhere for that matter.


last we could argue symantic, sentance structure or how the english language is interpreted based on the country you live in etc until the end of time itself and we may never resolve this or any other rules debate.
What we can all aggree on is that when you are involved in a game local interpretations rule the gaming tables of the world, unless there is a document officially sanctioned by GW that states otherwise. If you are in possesion of such a document in this specific instance then please educate us on where we can procure one, in that way we can all come to see the truth as you calim it to be.

G12

graphics12 wrote:First the managers of the 5 local stores in my area have a combined total of more than 60 years of 40k experience

Firstly, I would like to point out that I have 9001 Years of 40k Experience and am precisely 1 second older than the Universe.

The point is it is irrelevant because I too can make things up on the interwebs. Whatever your GW "managers" say is not relevant because it cannot be Verified. What can be Verified are the Rules, which is, much to my surprise, is what we discuss on this particular subsection of the Dakkadakka forums.

I have made my case. That is, because the Vehicle satisfies both the Immobilised and Move at Combat/Cruising Speed, you apply both criteria, needing a 4+/6 to hit as well as hitting automatically.

Now, if you would be so kind as to please explain your assertion that one may ignore the rules for directing attacks against Immobilised non-walker vehicles when said vehicles are clearly Immobilised?

Furthermore, I respectfully request you familiarise yourself with the Tenets of You Make Da Call. You are actually in breach of rule #2 which states that "The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs". As one can see, "My Local GW manager" is not listed as one of these official sources.

graphics12 wrote:
Next for the overwhelming majority of the people that play the game of 40K their local GW store and it's employees are the primary source of answers for rules debates and that all by itself makes them a valid source to quote here or anywhere for that matter.

That's a bold assumption. I think it might have some grain of truth in the UK because GW killed the independent game stores there and have since colonized the country. But here in the states, the number of GW stores is dwarfed by the number of independents. On top of that, there's no telling how many people play in their homes which is what my group does.

Gwar's point has merit. The moderators have asked us to make distinctions between what the rules say and how we would play them. What your local GW employees say falls under how you would play it, not what the rules say. I would add that it doesn't matter how many years of experience they have with 40k in total given that 5th has only been around a year and most of have the same amount of experience with it.

I thought I had made my case. In my area the universal interpretation of this rule is simply this.
If the vehicle moved in it's previous movement phase then you do not hit automatically even if you immobilise it during your shooting phase. The arguments made in the local stores here be they managers or fellow gamers are as powerful and persuasive as yours. Obviously in your area you view this as a situation where both conditions could apply and so the interpretation that even though a vehicle moved it is still auto hit if you are able to immobilise it in your shooting phase. Here we view the rule that only one of the conditions condition can apply. If the vehicle moved then it cannot be auto hit even if you immobilise it during your shooting phase. If it was immobilised in a previous turn, or the player choose not to move it during the movement phase then it would be auto hit. You say we are ignoring the rules, and here they would say that you are deliberately misinterpreting them to try and gain an advantage.

All of this brings us back to two things.
Since there has not been an official clarification of this rule by GW the local interpretations will rule the gaming tables of the world.


"That's a bold assumption. I think it might have some grain of truth in the UK because GW killed the independent game stores there and have since colonized the country. But here in the states, the number of GW stores is dwarfed by the number of independents."

To use your phrase that's a bold assumption. I am not sure what area of the U.S. you live in, or how it is in any other area, but out here in the wilds of the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon and most of Idaho and Montana from personal experiences) there are very few if any independant stores that sell GW products of any kind. The GW stores on the other hand seem like they are located in virtually every shopping mall. It is obvious from this discrepancy that the level of GW infestation here in the good old U.S. of A varies significantly.
G12

The density of GW stores could not be less relevant to a rules discussion.

Edit: To be relevant, I'll actually contribute something. Namely, the chart giving the roll needed to hit begins at the top and proceeds downwards, with automatic hits first. Thus, reading the chart for the roll needed to hit immobilized vehicles, we should see that there's an automatic hit, and stop reading at that point.

This seems to be getting a little heated. might we tone it down a bit to avoid the wrath of the modquisition?

What we can all aggree on is that when you are involved in a game local interpretations rule the gaming tables of the world, unless there is a document officially sanctioned by GW that states otherwise. If you are in possesion of such a document in this specific instance then please educate us on where we can procure one, in that way we can all come to see the truth as you calim it to be.

You are correct. But i fear i must inform you that i am in possession of such a document. 3 copies of it in fact, 2 hardcover and 1 smaller version that comes with the starter set. You can buy them in your local GW store or lgs. And what it says on this issue has been correctly interpreted by Gwar due to the Break No Rule law.

graphics12 wrote:You can count on the fact that I will bring them up again and here is why.
First the managers of the 5 local stores in my area have a combined total of more than 60 years of 40k experience, while this does not make them right in all situations it is still a significant body of knowledge and it should not be discarded by you or anyone else simply because of who they are.

I would have no difficulty finding five people on Dakka with the same depth of experience. I've been playing 40K since the release of 1st edition. That doesn't make me any more or less correct.

Next for the overwhelming majority of the people that play the game of 40K their local GW store and it's employees are the primary source of answers for rules debates and that all by itself makes them a valid source to quote here or anywhere for that matter.

Actually, in the UK the vast majority of players play at home or in clubs. Do you not see the same group of faces in the store? Do you really think that's all of the players?

last we could argue symantic, sentance structure or how the english language is interpreted based on the country you live in etc until the end of time itself and we may never resolve this or any other rules debate.
What we can all aggree on is that when you are involved in a game local interpretations rule the gaming tables of the world

You can have whatever local interpretation you like, we're talking about what the rulebook actually says.

The rule is poorly written. It says is currently immobilized whilst implying that it means immobilized in a previous turn.
I would guess the latter is what they meant and I'd play it that way if someone wanted to.
However, the first step of the to-hit table is very clear. Does it make sense? Not especially.

Rules wise i think it's pretty obvious that it is actually an auto hit.

I can't make my mind up if i agree with it or not though with regards to it being realistic. Yes, someone said the vehicle would be slewing to a stop, skidding and shredding tracks etc. However, if that was the case wouldn't it also be moved randomly throughout the opponents phase? I'm rather thinking that having moved, been shot at, any troops nearby would wait until it had skidded to a stop before launching themselves at it. That seems a lot more likely to me.

So even regards to how i'd like the rule, i think it's correct.

Gwar! wrote:You hit automatically. Think of it as satisfying both criteria, you both hit automatically AND hit on a 4+/6. Since you hit automatically, the dice roll is just a moot point.

Gwar is spot on with this as usual.

Its the same as the drop-pod, moves in SM turn but becomes Immobilized when it lands, thus letting assaulting Orks to autohit it.

Think of it this way no matter how far it moved, it is NOW stationary. It has been robbed of its speed and also its bonus to hit. If it wasn't immobilized it would still have its speed and bonus and be free to continue in the next turn.

Also due to your low post count Graphics I think you should respect the people that have been on here a long time and with a post count of 7000+ Gwar is a treasure trove of good information (although he can be a grump at times!)

Guard, I can totally see what you're saying but the turn sequence is an abstraction so, to some extent the two turns are happening simultaneously.

So, the tank is moving and shooting whilst being shot at, loosing a track and being assaulted, all in a very short span of time.

I really don't know, both interpretations make sense. I don't think the rule is so badly out of place that it needs to be house ruled.


Edit for double tap

f74 wrote:
Also due to your low post count Graphics I think you should respect the people that have been on here a long time and with a post count of 7000+ Gwar is a treasure trove of good information (although he can be a grump at times!)

Due to your low postcount, it is perfectly OK to ignore that part of the post, right?

For fear of being sigged, I will simply state that an individual who's avatar bears a troll-like countenance has made wise and truthful statements in this thread.

I never thought about it as hitting both automatically and on 4s/6s, but I suppose that's pretty solid ground for the argument.

This is why we hope for an immobilize result with our krak grenades before our PF swings.

Steelmage99 wrote:

f74 wrote:
Also due to your low post count Graphics I think you should respect the people that have been on here a long time and with a post count of 7000+ Gwar is a treasure trove of good information (although he can be a grump at times!)

Due to your low postcount, it is perfectly OK to ignore that part of the post, right?

haha this exchange just reminds me of how many times relatively common names around here have got new accounts or returned from a ban or hiatus only to be heckled for low post count. Comedy!

Steelmage99 wrote:

f74 wrote:
Also due to your low post count Graphics I think you should respect the people that have been on here a long time and with a post count of 7000+ Gwar is a treasure trove of good information (although he can be a grump at times!)

Due to your low postcount, it is perfectly OK to ignore that part of the post, right?

If you wish, All i meant was that for his first few posts starting a flamewar was a tad impolite.

I myself would not get into that situation so early on. Just thought it was getting a little heated.

No hard feelings.

graphics12 wrote:To use your phrase that's a bold assumption.

I made no assumption. My statement about GW stores being outnumbered by independents is factual. Pick up a copy of White Dwarf. It lists all the stores in the country.

I am not sure what area of the U.S. you live in, or how it is in any other area, but out here in the wilds of the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon and most of Idaho and Montana from personal experiences) there are very few if any independant stores that sell GW products of any kind. The GW stores on the other hand seem like they are located in virtually every shopping mall.

Oregon, Idaho, and Montana may not have lots of games stores, but they don't have any GW stores.

It is obvious from this discrepancy that the level of GW infestation here in the good old U.S. of A varies significantly.
G12

Kinda. There are a few places with GW stores. Most of the country doesn't have any GW stores. A lot of states that do have GW stores have just one (NJ, PA, MO etc)

From ajfirecracker
"The density of GW stores could not be less relevant to a rules discussion. "
The density of GW stores was not listed as a part of the rules debate, it was listed as a means of illustrating what is now the obvious difference in the number of GW stores in a specific geographical location, and that was posted in response to another member.


From Drudge Dreadnought
"You are correct. But i fear i must inform you that i am in possession of such a document. 3 copies of it in fact, 2 hardcover and 1 smaller version that comes with the starter set. You can buy them in your local GW store or lgs. And what it says on this issue has been correctly interpreted by Gwar due to the Break No Rule law. "
And we all have those same documents, the problem with these documents is simply this. In standard GW fashion the rules are written in such a way as to be vague and confusing, or do be open to significant interpretation by your local gaming community. Specificaly I have the miniature version of this document and I want to point you to what that document counts as and I quote "The most important rule" it is located at the top of page 2, if you are not familiar with that rule please read it before you continue reading this post.

Based on what the rule book calls "the most important" rule if I am ever in your area I will play this by your interpretation, if you are ever in my area then you will have to play it buy ours, or you will need something other than the basic rule book to prove your interpretation, something like an FAQ.

G12