Strange close combats and how to retreat?

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.

**KaloranSLC**

Specific > General, no? It's cyclical logic.

Weapon Destroyed is treated as Immobilised if there are no weapons to destroy.

The WALKER rules state, again, "but otherwise fight normally, no matter how many immobilised...". I realise what you're saying, and agree with what is intended. However, from a purely RAW perspective, you effectively ignore Immobilised results.

Gwar! wrote:But if you can show me the rule where it explicitly states "Walkers can be immobilised multiple times and sod the Vehicle Damage rules", I'll concede the point.

The words "but", "normally", and "no matter how many" are pretty self explanatory, even within the context of the paragraph.

**Gwar!**

Lol, no. From a RaW standpoint, all immobilised become Weapon Destroyed.

You still haven't shown me the part where it says Walkers ignore the vehicle rules. Those exact words are needed. Unless they are there, walkers still follow all the normal rules.

Also, gogo Selective quoting. The Context shows that it means stunned as well as Immobilised. As it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever suffer more than 1 Immobilised result... well, I'll leave you to your crazy notions.

**KaloranSLC**

See edit above.

**Gwar!**

I can just as easily selective Quote, but I don't because I follow the rules.

Nowhere does it state walkers ignore the Immobilised > Weapon Popped if already immobilised rules.

But, tbh, I give up. I have made my point. I have shown you what the rules are. If you refuse to acknowledge them, that is your problem now, not mine.

**KaloranSLC**

Gwar! wrote:I can just as easily selective Quote, but I don't because I follow the rules.

Nowhere does it state walkers ignore the Immobilised > Weapon Popped if already immobilised rules.

But, tbh, I give up. I have made my point. I have shown you what the rules are. If you refuse to acknowledge them, that is your problem now, not mine.

Fair enough. I never said I disagreed with you on what you're supposed to do. The sentence itself, in my opinion, is poorly worded enough that someone could argue it - again, given the words used - even within context.

Sorry for troubling you.

AWAY!

**Hollismason**

I was really hoping for some sort of Cylon hybrid 40k model. Although I will now refer to all of my Dreadnoughts as Cybots.

To add is there any way to get out of combat with a dreadnought that has had all of its weapons destroyed and is immobilized. I have seen this happen multiple times.

**Gwar!**

Hollismason wrote:I was really hoping for some sort of Cylon hybrid 40k model. Although I will now refer to all of my Dreadnoughts as Cybots.

To add is there any way to get out of combat with a dreadnought that has had all of its weapons destroyed and is immobilized. I have seen this happen multiple times.

Yes, lose a model and fail the morale test or blow the dread to bits. A Dread that is Immobile and WD still gets 1 S6 Attack.

**Hollismason**

Someone pointed to some rule at the time that a vehicle with no weapons and immobilized was considered destroyed but I cant find that any where was that in 4th.

**combo**

Page 61 "Note: a Vehicle that suffers either damaged result when it has no weapons left and is already immobilised treats the result as 'destroyed - wrecked' instead"

**Lordhat**

Dashofpepper wrote:
Witzkatz wrote:

I played my first "big" game against a friend of mine yesterday, around 630 points

That just made me chuckle.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:
Do the sentinel and the marines have to fight their endless struggle, until a marine rolls three 6's in a row (6 to hit, 6 to glance, 6-->4 to immobilize-->kill, 1/216 chance) ?

Something doesn't add up here. Why would you need 3 6s in a row? A sentinel is a walker with a weapon skill. At base, you need 4s to hit it. If its weapon skill is double plus one of yours...you need 5+ to hit it. If your weapon skill is higher than the sentinel, you need 3+ to hit it.

Secondly, I don't know if a sentinel is AV10 all the way around or not? You always hit a walker on the front armor in close combat until you immobilize it. So if it is AV10 all the way around, I can see you needing 6 to glance. But there's a few things you can do here.

3: Weapon destroyed
4: Immobilized
5: Destroyed

Once all weapons on a walker are destroyed, if you roll another weapon destroyed, it is automatically immobilized. If you roll an immobilize result on a vehicle that is already immobilized, it goes to weapon destroyed. If all the weapons are destroyed on an immobilized vehicle and you roll a 3 or 4, the vehicle is destroyed (5).

I'm going to assume it was one of those fancy new av12 sentinels, as such the SM's would need to use their Krak grenades on it. Until the walker in question is stunned (not shaken), or immobilized at the start of the assault phase, models using grenades always require a 6 to hit. (BGB Pg. 73)

**Gandair**

I'd like to expand more on my defiler question, but I've had a bit of trouble understanding the responses given and am still confused as to the result. If someone could spell it out for me again that would rock. I have trouble grasping concepts sometimes.

**Witzkatz**

@Dashofpepper: Lordhat has it right. It was an Armageddon pattern AV12 sentinel and therefore I really needed that three 6s in a row. The stunned result may've been useful, too, however I was only able to achieve a "shaken" once in that battle and that was, of course, useless.

My apologies for creating some confusion about the Cybot

You know, it already sounds so English/American that I sometimes forget these things are called dreadnought.

@Gwar: It never occurred to me that they call them Cybots over here because Germans could be offended by using the term "dreadnought" (kicker of german asses).

I'd rather say, while most people here know terms like "Predator" or "Crusader" from movies or games, "dreadnought" is rather rarely used and Germans don't know what to expect from that term. On the other hand, "Cybot"...Cyborg, Robot, Cybot! Aaah!

May be more obvious for us

**coredump**

Gandair, I would suggest starting a new thread on that topic.