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.

The question came up at my FLGS on whether multiple Immobilized results form the same weapon in a single round shooting get changed to Weapon Destroyed or not. Under the description of the Immobilized result it says "any further" result becomes a Weapon Destroyed. An example:

An Eldar Scatter Laser hits a Rhino's rear armor and glances twice. Both results are Immobilized.

What I gather from the rulebook is the following:

Take either all of the Pen'ing or all of the Glancing Results, add modifiers, and apply them all at the same time, then take all of the other and apply them in the same process.

So does that mean...

A) I take all of the results from a single weapon, do the pens (check for Immobilized results), do the glances (further checking for Immobilized results).

B) I take all of the results from a single weapon, do both pens and glances, and apply the results simultaneously (meaning no further Immobilized results, only one regardless of how many there are.

The big question here is what theck does further mean? Further from that one being applied? Further from any more that are applied?

This is also not counting multiple shots from the same weapons being equipped on something, or from different weapons. Sorry for the massive amount of inquiries at once. One of the workers at my local GW said that any shots from the same weapons would go simul, then any shots form different weapons would be counted after. So YMDC (a.k.a. Gwar!), any ideas here?

Further = more; in addition to.

Not later or later than

You can only have a single occurence of the Immobilized result. Any additional Immobilized results become Weapon Destroyed. So even if you rolled all your damage results simultaneously and incurred three Immobilized results, one would apply to immobilizing the vehicle, and the other two would become Weapon Destroyed.

As soon as the vehicle is immobilized any other imobilized results whether coming from the same shooting or later shooting will isntead be a weapon destroyed result.

Even if the results all occur at the same time? That is the hang up at my FLGS. If all the results are done at the exact same moment, it would seem not to be a "further" result. I would tend to agree with what everyone has said, but I was hoping for a better response to give than "nuh uh." The wording does leave some room for other interpretation.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Even if the results all occur at the same time? That is the hang up at my FLGS. If all the results are done at the exact same moment, it would seem not to be a "further" result. I would tend to agree with what everyone has said, but I was hoping for a better response to give than "nuh uh." The wording does leave some room for other interpretation.

Kirsanth has already addressed the problem you have with the simultaneous results. 'Further results' doesn't necessarily mean that one must occur after another, it means there is another result that takes place in addition to the first.

"Joe gave a great speech. It hit on all of the important details and, furthermore, convinced everyone that he was the right man for the job."

Both effects occurred at the same time (during Joe's speech) yet 'further' is used to illustrate how one effect was additive to the first.

Not sure if that example helps at all, but that's the way I believe the rules treat multiple immobilized results, regardless of whether they are from the same weapon or unit shooting. Think of it as just a whole lot of dakka tearing the vehicle up. While the two hits from an autocannon both had the potential to blow out the tracks of the Chimera, since one already destroyed the tracks, the other ricocheted and destroyed one of the weapons.

DoW

kirsanth wrote:Further = more; in addition to.

Not later or later than

kirsanth is correct, it is a moot point because the wording clearly indicates that any additional Immobilised results after the first result in a weapon destroyed result.

Gwar!: Your sentence seems to imply "moot" is used in its american english meaning, while your nationality suggests the british english meaning. You have confused me.


On topic: I agree with the "additional immobilized results are converted to weapon destroyed results, even it they are the result of the same gun shooting" crowd.

Witzkatz wrote:Gwar!: Your sentence seems to imply "moot" is used in its american english meaning, while your nationality suggests the british english meaning. You have confused me.

That was the point It annoys kirsanth no end

Cool. I'll have to bring it up next week and let my local GW schmuck know he was off :p

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Cool. I'll have to bring it up next week and let my local GW schmuck know he was off :p

Go easy on him, hes a salesman, not a referee. He gets paid to sell you gak, not to interpret rules.

Falconlance wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Cool. I'll have to bring it up next week and let my local GW schmuck know he was off :p

Go easy on him, hes a salesman, not a referee. He gets paid to sell you gak, not to interpret rules.

Unless he was a referee, then lay into him. With a Pillow Case. Filled with Bricks

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Cool. I'll have to bring it up next week and let my local GW schmuck know he was off :p

Go easy on him, hes a salesman, not a referee. He gets paid to sell you gak, not to interpret rules.

Unless he was a referee, then lay into him. With a Pillow Case. Filled with Bricks

Do you guys in the UK have your GW's staffed with referees?

Falconlance wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Cool. I'll have to bring it up next week and let my local GW schmuck know he was off :p

Go easy on him, hes a salesman, not a referee. He gets paid to sell you gak, not to interpret rules.

Unless he was a referee, then lay into him. With a Pillow Case. Filled with Bricks

Do you guys in the UK have your GW's staffed with referees?

Naw, I am saying that if he WAS judging an event for example, lambaste him for not knowing the rules. If he was just a random Redshirt selling Platik Krak to 11 year olds, leave him be.