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.

It is easy. There are 2 clauses (parts of speech with a subject and a verb).

The verbs are "is" and "was immobilized" - we all know that in English, the subject of the verb is the first noun to the left of it that is not in a prepositional phrase.

I am at work and don't have the whole book, but hopefully you are just quoting part of the sentence otherwise it is a fragment.

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

just for fun let's break it down (surely, I am not the only one here for whom grammar is fun!)

"Attacking a vehicle" - sets up the condition with a verb form and a direct object. The subject in this case is an understood pronoun from a preceding sentence. It could also just be seen as an introductory clause - fwiw it was just lazy writing to write this rather than "Units" or "Models".

"that is immobilized" - "that" is a pronoun which was introduced in the previous clause standing for vehicle. It is also the subject of the compound verb "is immobilized" (this is passive voice and not great and probably part of the problem with interpretation).

"or was stationary" - "or" is a correlative conjunction. Grammar tells us that there should be a second one but it can be (again, in the case of lazy writing usually) implied. Some examples are "either/or", "neither/nor", "both/and", etc. Correlative conjunctions are also coordinating conjunctions which join equal parts of speech - in this case equal dependent clauses.

in its previous turn. - this is a prepositional phrase which acts as an adjective for the vehicle in question for the clause in which it is attached - the object from before which is the vehicle.

Kaffis wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:Nope, there's one qualifier with no specific turn mentioned. Immobilized.

Ah, so you see it as two parallel statements with the same qualifier. That would be "Attacking a vehicle that is immobilized ... in its previous turn" and "Attacking a vehicle that ... was stationary in its previous turn."

No... Immobilized has no turn mentioned, it's enough that you are immobilized. The other qualifier, stationary, has to do with the previous turn. Sorry if my English sucks, I regarded Immobilized and Stationary as qualifiers and the "previous turn" as an additional condition on Stationary. Grumble grumble third language and all.

I can't believe this is even being considered arguable.

This is pretty clear cut.

1) this game is played in turns, and within those turns are player turns, and within the player turns there are phases. (the point being that this is the games 'time reference').

2) The rule simply states that "...is immobilized or stationary in its previous turn" Note the 'or' that is an 'either' statement, it means if either occur than the result is an automatic hit. Precedence is not a player at all. For example if I told you that you could go outside and play if you do the dishes or if your room was cleaned yesterday as asked *substitute previous turn if it helps*. You would simply say well a) I did not clean my room so I can do the dishes to go outside, or b) I already cleaned my room so I can go outside and play.
Note: you can use either there is no precedence it does not matter. Either one will trigger the *automatic hit* event, just like it would in programming.

3) The sentence clearly uses to different tenses of the same verb. *IS* immobilized (present) and *WAS* stationary in its previous turn(past). That means if it is currently immobilized or did not move in the players last turn than you hit the darn thing automatically. No need for charts at all. It is all in there.

Lets break it down

Move phase
time reference change
Shoot phase: Vehicle is immobilized
time reference change
Assault phase: attack vehicle and hit automatically

There is one thing to say about dakkaites is you guys will honestly argue the color of the sky if it ever came up.

I don't see why this is being debated still after the rule on Page 70 for assaulting fast vehicles was brought up, the phrase has two ways of being red, we get it, that fact was covered in the OP, but surely page 70 is extremely firm RAI that happens to support one of the two ways of reading this phrase in the english language.

Drunkspleen wrote:I don't see why this is being debated still after the rule on Page 70 for assaulting fast vehicles was brought up, the phrase has two ways of being red, we get it, that fact was covered in the OP, but surely page 70 is extremely firm RAI that happens to support one of the two ways of reading this phrase in the english language.

It is being debated because people keep using a RAI argument when RAW is so totally unarguable. Two possibilities "is immobilized" or "was station in previous turn". Pretty clear cut as far as rules as written go. Why would RAI mean anything in this case - there is no debate as to how it is written if you can use English grammar correctly.

Im pretty sure our schools teach "internet social networking" over "English grammar" nowadays so its perfectly reasonable that we dont understand grammar

fullheadofhair wrote:It is being debated because people keep using a RAI argument when RAW is so totally unarguable. Two possibilities "is immobilized" or "was station in previous turn". Pretty clear cut as far as rules as written go. Why would RAI mean anything in this case - there is no debate as to how it is written if you can use English grammar correctly.

Yes, but now, those people who claim the rule says "immobilised in the previous turn" or "was stationary in the previous turn" would have no choice but to accept that a currently immobilized fast vehicle that moved flat out in it's previous turn is hit automatically whereas a regular vehicle that moved at cruising speed last turn and is currently immobilized is hit on a 6.

padixon wrote:

There is one thing to say about dakkaites is you guys will honestly argue the color of the sky if it ever came up.

The RAW says the sky is black.
The RAI says it's blue.

Zip Napalm wrote:

padixon wrote:

There is one thing to say about dakkaites is you guys will honestly argue the color of the sky if it ever came up.

The RAW says the sky is black.
The RAI says it's blue.

In that case, until the FAQ comes out the sky is black during a 40k game irregardless of what the good Lord intended the color to be. Who am I to guess the intention of the Almighty? He could have wanted the sky pink for all we know, why would you assume RAI is blue.

Lol. That is funny. When you immobilise a dreadnought isn't that an immediate effect to allow you to hit with grenades using your WS? WOuldn't the same instance apply here vs moving vehicles?

Oops

Lol I think your aim is a bit off there nurglitch, you missed both the threads that are relevant to your questions.

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that, like in computer code, the first trigger you hit is the one you take. You hit immobilized first, so automatically hit.

If this wasn't the case, why would immobilized be there at all? It would say:
Attacking a vehicle that was stationary its previous turn (including immobilised) - automatic hit
attacking a vehicle...


The ONLY reason that "is immobilized" would be in the chart is for the case where you have immobilized it during your shooting, and are to be granted automatic hits when you assault it. Otherwise it's clearly redundant.

So since we must choose between the two triggers, it would seem that the first was the one intended to take precedence, as otherwise it wouldn't exist. The latter has no such argument that it should take precedence, so should be considered to not apply in this instance.

Zip Napalm wrote:

padixon wrote:

There is one thing to say about dakkaites is you guys will honestly argue the color of the sky if it ever came up.

The RAW says the sky is black.
The RAI says it's blue.

Ahhhh, but the question is not what color is the sky, but rather why do we call it 'blue'? Why isn't it 'garglesnarf'?

don_mondo wrote:

Zip Napalm wrote:

padixon wrote:

There is one thing to say about dakkaites is you guys will honestly argue the color of the sky if it ever came up.

The RAW says the sky is black.
The RAI says it's blue.

Ahhhh, but the question is not what color is the sky, but rather why do we call it 'blue'? Why isn't it 'garglesnarf'?

Because, "Off We Go Into the Wild Garglesnarf Yonder" has too many syllables.

The problem (identified much earlier) is that two situations can simultaneously apply:

A. If the vehicle is immobile a hit is automatic.

B. If the vehicle was stationary last turn a hit is automatic.

C. If the vehicle moved at cruising speed last turn a 4+ roll is required to hit.

Now A and B can both apply, but, whereas the result is the same, no one is confused.
B and C are mutually exclusive, no problem.
A and C can both apply, but the result is different, hence the argument as to what to do. There is no statement in the rules covering this situation. All of this was identified in the first few posts.

All subsequent argument has consisted of persons each attempting to justify his interpretation of what to do in a situation not covered by the rules. Many of the justifications are quite logically argued, but are nevertheless, unofficial interpretations.

The correct answer is covered in the BBB. Discuss it with your opponent before the game and see if you agree. If you don't agree, roll a d6 to see whose interpretation will be used in the game that you are about to play or are playing. I know that many don't like to have the rules depend on a die roll, but look on it as no more significant than having the rules for victory (the mission) depend upon a die roll.

A and C aren't exclusive, since an automatic hit is basically rolling a 1+ on 1D6.

To see this, take a pair of index cards. Hold them together and punch a row of six holes along their edges. Then take one card and, using scissors, cut the edge off of three holes at one end of the card, leaving indents.

You should end up with something like:

Card #1 OOOOOO
Card #2 UUUOOO

Now, number the holes/indents on each card, left to right, so that:

OOOOOO
UUUOOO
123456

Now, roll to hit, and poke a pencil through the indicated hole in both cards. Lift the pencil parallel to the floor.

If the pencil has gone through an indent, this indicates the attack has missed.

If the pencil has gone through a hole, this indicates the attack has hit.

If you hit, then you should be able to lift the card while holding the pencil parallel to the floor. A card hanging off the pencil thus indicates a hit.

Therefore, if card #2 represents a vehicle moving at cruising speed last turn, and you roll a 3, then the pencil will go through an indent, and will not hold the card up.

Likewise, if card #1 represents a vehicle that was stationary last turn, and you roll any result, then the pencil will go through a hole and will hold the card up.

But since you get one roll to hit, and a vehicle can both move at cruising speed in the previous turn and be immobilized in the current turn, you should put the card together, and roll once to push your pencil through the indicated place.

If you roll a 3, then obviously one card will fall off the pencil as you raise it, and one card will stay. And since a card staying on indicates a hit, it should be clear that when you hit both automatically and on a 4+, you hit automatically.

Man, that one takes me back a bit. I think I'm going to spend the night playing with punch-cards.

@ Nurglitch

If you put that much effort into proving your right IRL then I am just in shock.

You are right though, and that post spells it out exactly how it should work. Immobilized vehicle get hit automatically regardless of how far they moved in the last turn.

Nurglitch makes a good point.

In this case, roll a dice to hit:
On a 1,2,3,4,5,or 6 you hit the vehicle because it is immobilized.
On a 4,5,or 6 you hit the vehicle despite cruising speed.


As the latter condition does not say you MISS if you roll a 1-3, the two are not mutually exclusive. On a 1-3 you hit because the vehicle IS immobilized, and on a 4-6 you hit DESPITE the vehicle moving at cruising speed, meaning that you hit no matter what you roll so you hit automatically.

/thread