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.

What is your take on hitting a vehicle in your assault phase, that you immobilised in your shooting phase, but that moved in its previous turn.

An example would be: In the shooting phase a squad of lootas shoot at a vendetta that moved 6" in its previous turn and score 1 penetrating hit, this manages to immobilise the vendetta which slides to a halt. In the assault phase a squad of slugga boyz assault the vendetta to try and destroy it, what do they need to score a hit, or is it automatic?

The rules say, " Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn" = Automatic hit.

However it also says " Attacking a vehicle that moved at combat speed in its previous turn " = 4+ to hit.

I think that it all comes down to the "is" before immobilised. As it's referring to the present as opposed to the past (moved), and it makes sense to me.

What is your take on it?

Mookie.

LKok at the tenses: IS IMMOBILISED

Is it immobilised? Yes? Then it is hit automatically

It is also hit ona 4+/6+, however hitting autmoatically overrides this....

Nosferatu1001:

Thats what I thought too, we just seem to have a few rules laywers around here that argue the opposite.

Will be slapping them with the rulebook in future.

Mookie.

Just because you shot and immobilised it, that does not change the fact that it moved in the perious turn.

If a vehicle moves 12 inches, then in your turn you shoot and immobilize it, it has still moved 12 inches. You cannot undo that. SO you hit it on 6s. This comes up alot. Just think about it. If it moves, you roll to hit it based off that.

Incorrect, pg 63 brb: if it's immobilized you auto hit. Very clear

People read your rule books dammit.
page 63, "attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in it's previous turn. Automatic hit.

So is the vehicle immobilised? Yes so automatic hit.

I know we aren't meant to use it but some of the people here either haven't read the rules and are saying how it is or 'cheat'.

For what it's worth, the INAT FAQ also agrees that a vehicle that is immobilised in the shooting phase is auto-hit in the following assault phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LKok at the tenses: IS IMMOBILISED

Is it immobilised? Yes? Then it is hit automatically

This.

If a vehicle both moved at cruising speed last turn and is immobilised you fulfill two conditions on the list and RAW there is no answer which would take precedence.

RAI it's quite obvious that immobilised is meant cause autohits as otherwise it would not be needed in the list at all.

GW can't write clear rules and this is just another case.

Thanks for the replies lads, I'll be playing it as automatic hits in future. This should most certainly help my Orks wreck some stuff.

Mookie

Webbe wrote:If a vehicle both moved at cruising speed last turn and is immobilised you fulfill two conditions on the list and RAW there is no answer which would take precedence.

RAI it's quite obvious that immobilised is meant cause autohits as otherwise it would not be needed in the list at all.

GW can't write clear rules and this is just another case.

I don't see what's wrong with it. Just apply all applicable results. If it moved 12", 6s equal hits. It's also immobilized, so all attacks automatically hit.

Roll your attacks, and pick out the 6s. Those count as hits. Then include all the other dice, since you auto-hit with the rest.

Webbe wrote:If a vehicle both moved at cruising speed last turn and is immobilised you fulfill two conditions on the list and RAW there is no answer which would take precedence.

RAI it's quite obvious that immobilised is meant cause autohits as otherwise it would not be needed in the list at all.

GW can't write clear rules and this is just another case.

It's rather obvious which would take precedence, you have 2 possible ways to hit 6's and auto hit. Obviously auto-hit includes hitting on 6s.

That is like saying when you move 12" you moved combat and cruising speeds so your not sure if it hits on 4s or 6s.

It's obviously not crystal clear rules writing. If it was this thread would never happen.

The problem is with reading, not writing -- this was covered.
Roll if you think it is required, to see which are auto-hit, and which are hit because of 6s.
Either way, every attack will land if the vehicle is immobilized, regardless of how far it has moved.

This comes up every few weeks and lasts until folks read the whole section.

Here is me explaining why NOT auto-hitting immob'd vehicles is against the rules.

From this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/254080.page

Lordhat wrote:What hasn't been stated: If a vehicle that moved and subsequently immobilized is NOT hit automatically, then even stating immobilized in the rule is redundant:

Rhino moves 6" and gets immobilized, Graphics' group plays that models require 4+ to hit it in the next assault phase. The next turn the vehicle cannot move and is hit automatically. Immobilized has absolutely no bearing in this situation, as the vehicle already meets the 'did not move' criteria, and the group has ignored the immobilized criteria in the turn it DID move.

If this was the way the rules were intended to work, why would they even give immobilized as a criteria?

The rules say, " Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn" = Automatic hit.

this is a complete sentance. and states EITHER stationary or immobilised on ITS previous turn. not the current turn. so unless you immobilised it on the other players turn you use the rules for it moving that turn.

Yeah, you can't blame GW for this one; the rule is clear. "Or" means if either one or both of the conditions is fulfilled, the attacks auto hit regardless of the other condition.

yanaki91303 wrote:

The rules say, " Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn" = Automatic hit.

this is a complete sentance. and states EITHER stationary or immobilised on ITS previous turn. not the current turn. so unless you immobilised it on the other players turn you use the rules for it moving that turn.

No, you dont - the "its previous turn" is joined to "was stationary".

IF the vehicle is currently immobilised, you auto hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

yanaki91303 wrote:

The rules say, " Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn" = Automatic hit.

this is a complete sentance. and states EITHER stationary or immobilised on ITS previous turn. not the current turn. so unless you immobilised it on the other players turn you use the rules for it moving that turn.

No, you dont - the "its previous turn" is joined to "was stationary".

IF the vehicle is currently immobilised, you auto hit.

What he said. Just as the sentence says " Attacking a vehicle that IS immobilised or WAS stationary in its previous turn" doesn't matter how it moved last turn because it IS immobilized this turn.

//Edge

OnTheEdge wrote:

What he said. Just as the sentence says " Attacking a vehicle that IS immobilised or WAS stationary in its previous turn" doesn't matter how it moved last turn because it IS immobilized this turn.

Thank you for this.

For those involved in the semantics discussion: an "OR" condition is satisfied if either of the two conditions is true. They don't compete. It's a logical test, not a consumer choice.

40K would be a different game if there were rules that promoted the illusion of simultaneous effects or play. Other games do this, but not this one.

BlueDagger wrote:Incorrect, pg 63 brb: if it's immobilized you auto hit. Very clear

QFT and from a RAI POV it is no longer moving when you assault it. I don't care if a Ferrari was traveling at light speed when it comes to a full stop at a red light, it's no longer moving anymore.

G

Yup, you auto hit.

You also hit on a 4+/6, but since you are also auto hitting anyway, it makes the roll redundant ;D

Something I like about this thread is that it conclusively shows that however clearly GW writes, that will never be clear enough for some people. I haven't made a scientific survey of it, but I'd say 90% when someone says that GW has written obscurely, the problem is with their reading skills, not with the clarity of the written material. It's this pervasive weakness of reading comprehension skills, even among such intelligent and well-educated people as play Warhammer 40k, that make technical writing such a specialized discipline and legal waivers so important to doing business.

"Attacking a vehicle that IS immobilised or WAS stationary in its previous turn"

What happens if Sluggaboyz assault a vehicle that moved 5" last turn.
I3 : Sluggaboyz hits on 4+ and give the vehicle immobilised.
I1 : Nob with Power Klaw hits now on 4+ or Automatic?

Booogeyman wrote:

"Attacking a vehicle that IS immobilised or WAS stationary in its previous turn"

What happens if Sluggaboyz assault a vehicle that moved 5" last turn.
I3 : Sluggaboyz hits on 4+ and give the vehicle immobilised.
I1 : Nob with Power Klaw hits now on 4+ or Automatic?

He hits on a 4+ AND automatically