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.

I fail to see how it's different to FNP tbh other than being optional. FNP never explicitly states a new period is formed, it simply says that when the wound is suffered you roll to ignore it. The Symbiotic Repair is the same. When an immobilised result is rolled, you subtract a wound and negate the result. Just replace negate with ignore.

The Immobilised does not count as a wrecked, it simply results in a wreck. This is different from squadrons where an immobilised does count as a wrecked result. Immobilised happens, then the vehicle gets wrecked as a result. Which means, like how when you suffer a wound, then the model is removed as a casualty, that the repair can occur just as FNP does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, until you can find a RULE that allows you to interrupt the immediately, wrecked, I will apply both at the same time. You are still wrecked, but you are no longer immmobilised.

But you are never "wrecked". It's just that immobilised during flat out is treated differently than immobilised in other cases, notably, it is treated like a wrecked result. But it is not a "wrecked" result. It is still an "immobilized" result with different/exceptional instructions on how to resolve the consequences of this result.

If you remove the immobilised, you remove the effects this causes, irrespective of whether it follows the consequences described under "immobilised", "wrecked", or whatever else it might incur.

Except you never get to interrupt the process - as soon as you roll the result they are wrecked. While you can remove the immobilised result, the other effect still happens.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you never get to interrupt the process - as soon as you roll the result they are wrecked. While you can remove the immobilised result, the other effect still happens.

That is a mute distinction. Just the same, you could say in all other cases that you can remove the immobilisied result, but the "immobilised effect" still happens.

If you remove the result, you remove the effects that come with it, irrespective of what the effects are or how you are told by the rules to arrive by them.

"moot"

By the time you try to remove the result you are already Wrecked. Good luck removing the result on a vehicle that doesnt exist any longer....

nosferatu1001 wrote:"moot"

By the time you try to remove the result you are already Wrecked. Good luck removing the result on a vehicle that doesnt exist any longer....

Moot. I am sorry.

Just the same you "remove" an immobilised effect on a vehicle that can no longer move. It's still the same.

1. You suffer an "immobilised result"

2. Immobilised result has the following effect, which is mostly "X" by default or "Y" under certain other conditions (such as when moving flat out with a skimmer).

3. Symbiotic repair allows you to trade a wound of a character to ignore the immobilised result (irrespective of whether the result triggers effect "X" or "Y").

All there is to it.

2a Before you get to remove the result, the vehicle is immediately wrecked.

New 3. There is no immobilised result to remove because the vehicle doesnt exist any longer, and this happens immediately - before you can remove the immobilised result.

That it, there isnt any more to it than that. Find a rule that lets you interrupt the process that immediately wrecks you, or you are wrecked, wrecked and a bit more wrecked.

Find a rule which lets you interrupt the process that immediately removes a model when it loses its last unsaved wound. And then point out to us how that rule is different to this one.

Feel No pain, which is triggered as soon as you suffer an unsaved wound. It also isnt optional.

Apples and oranges - understand the phrase yet?

You are IMMEDIATELY wrecked. Find an allowance, permissive ruleset and all, to halt that process. YOU are making the exceptional claim, YOU must prove it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:2a Before you get to remove the result, the vehicle is immediately wrecked.

New 3. There is no immobilised result to remove because the vehicle doesnt exist any longer, and this happens immediately - before you can remove the immobilised result.

That it, there isnt any more to it than that. Find a rule that lets you interrupt the process that immediately wrecks you, or you are wrecked, wrecked and a bit more wrecked.

If you remove the result, your remove the effect. It doesn't matter if the effect is "can no longer move", "is wrecked", "model is removed" or "grows pink flowers all over".

Show me a rule that says the application of the effect of wrecked (analogous, but not identical to the damage result of wrecked) is treated any different than other possible damage effects.

There is no need for an interruption. The effects of the "immobilised result" are there (and they may be X or Y). Than the Symbiotic Repair rule is used and "negates" the result (along with all its effects). It doesn't negate a specific effect. It negates any and all effects that you may have suffered as a consequence of an "immobilised result". If an interruption of the sort you call for would be required, it would equally be missing with the traditional "can no longer move" effect associated with an immobilised result. As the interruption isn't needed to retro-actively negate an effect with the latter, it is likewise not needed with the former.

Sigh.

Show me a rule that lets you remove Immobilised BEFORE You are wrecked. I can point to a rule that state you are IMMEDIATELY destroyed (wrecked), so you must, MUST, find a rule that lets you stop the process for you to decide to take the wound, BEFORE the vehicle is destroyed.

If you cannot show this, then it is IRRELEVANT that you coudl normally remove Immobilised + associated effects - the vehicle no longer exists by the time you get to rmeove immobilised, meaning SR no longer functions

Why don't you just accept that negating is not the same as repairing. Your idea of the symbiotic rule is that first you apply a damage result then you fix its consequences. Guess what? That is not negating, it's repairing. Any english teacher can tell you the difference.

And anyway the rule clearly specifies that it negates damage table results, not effects or status. By letting the damage table result resolve you have a status, which symbiotic repair can't change. Using your logic, that would make symbiotic repair useless in any occasion...

For a start it doesn't REMOVE the Immobilised result, but instead negates it, therefore it NEVER HAPPENED.

How can you apply a rule to an effect that was negated, and therefore never happened?

Why cant you accept that immediately you suffer the result "immobilised", which IS required by the SR rule (it negates results, not potentials) you are no longer a vehicle and thus cannto have the result negated?

PROVE you can interrupt the process, with a rule, or refrain from posting - you have no rules arguemnt, so are still breaking the tenets of this forum

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

Show me a rule that lets you remove Immobilised BEFORE You are wrecked. I can point to a rule that state you are IMMEDIATELY destroyed (wrecked), so you must, MUST, find a rule that lets you stop the process for you to decide to take the wound, BEFORE the vehicle is destroyed.

If you cannot show this, then it is IRRELEVANT that you coudl normally remove Immobilised + associated effects - the vehicle no longer exists by the time you get to rmeove immobilised, meaning SR no longer functions

It doesn't do so BEFORE, nor does it need to (well, it likely does from an in-game perspective, but that's another question). There is no need to stop the process.

All the rule does is negate the result with all associated effects, including the removal from play. There is no rule that would exempt a form of destroyed/removed from play/wrecked result from a (from a rule-perspective, not in-game-narrative perspective; in the latter, as has been said, it "never happened") retro-active negation of the result. There is no principle that you can apply rules only unilaterally in one "time-direction". Indeed, the very formulation of Symbotic repair, which "negates" already existing results proves that your attempt to create some sort of temporal one-way-street of rule-application is not shared with the 40K rules RAW.

How are you negating the result on a vehicle that no longer exists?

As soon as the CCB is destroyed (immediately) SR is no longer available, as it is a special rule of the CCB.

Prove the special rule for a vehicle can still be used when that vehicle no longer exists. Prove you can interrupt the process whch happens IMMEDIATELY to stop the vehicle from being removed

Oh wait, you cannot. You can prove no such allowance and therefore, RAW, you are still wrong on this.

The proof is in the english dictionary under "negate".

You are treating different damage results differently without a basis.

Example 1
"Crew stunned" -> effect: the vehicle may not shoot.

If you somehow manage to "negate" the stunned result, the effect is removed and the vehicle may shoot again.

Example 2
"Immobilised" -> effect: the vehicle may not move.

If you somehow manage to "negate" the immobilised result, the effect is removed and the vehicle may move again.

Example 3
"Immobilised" (+ special circumstances/conditions) -> effect: the vehicle is treated as wrecked and removed from play as a functional vehicle.

If you somehow manage to "negate" the immobilised result, the effect is removed and the vehicle is returned to play.




If you want to have a special treatment where Example 3 is treated different from example 1 or 2, the burden of proof is with you to show that this is so.

If your logic would be sound nosferatu1001, it would be applicable to all the examples above (thus even powers that would be able to negate/remove stunned or immobilized results, would not be able to remove/negate their effects which all also happen "immediately".

In this sense, it works much like an armour save (how could you make an armour-save on a model that has already taken a wound and is consequently removed from play?). You just keep it "in mind", resolve the rule but keep the mini in place as you know a possible "negation" of the resultion might be coming up.

Nos, i don't usually disagree with you on rules issues but here I have to put forth an argument. The rules issue here that you claim we need (A specific line of text telling us that immobilized/wrecked on flat out skimmers can be prevented) is a straw man. The real issue here, as posted above, is the difference between a repair and a negation. The specific rule in question "negates" the damage result, including all furthermore transgressions from the damage result (i.e. wrecked status). As a counterpoint something like a fabricator claw array on the tomb spyder is only allowed to 'repair' damage, so the damage must occur and be fully resolved before it could be fixed (which would then wreck the vehicle after the immoblized was applied).

Basicly what we're saying here is that since the damaged result (immobilized) is negated by the CCB's special rule, it never resolves thus never goes to wrecked status. The flat out skimmer rule does not say "all 4's on the D6 are magically converted to 5's" but that immobilized skimmers become wrecks. They must first be immobilized to satisfy that rule, which is prevented by the CCB rule (via the word 'negate').

My .02

Copper - so, again tenet 6. Youre doing brilliantly here.

Tetris - the issue is that you dont get the chance to negate the result BEOFRE the vehicle is destroyed; as soon as it is destroyed you cannot negate the result, as your vehicle AND the special rule allowing it to be negated has been replaced by a wreck.

My logic is 100% sound: prove you can negate the result "immobilised" before the vehicle is destroyed. You cannot do so, as you have no permission to interrupt the Immobilised RESULT which is immediately treated as destroyed (wrecked) instead.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Someran - erm, that results in an Immobilised result, unless it went flat out. Meaning that if you dont get flat out you get the chance to negate, if you did you are destroyed.

I don't know if I was speaking in code or what, but I was referring to the fact that, if you fail a dangerous terrain test with a vehicle, you suffer an immobilised result and stop immediately. Could you negate it and continue moving, or if you did negate it would you have already finished your movement?

Ah ok, it wasnt clear you were talking about moving - but you take Dangerous terrain tests when you start or finish in terrain (for skimmers, theyre not "in terrain" during their move) -- so you would take the terrain test before moving, if failed you could negate it, you have yet to move so could carry on moving. Or you do it at the end, and all you do is negate the result (but have finished moving)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
My logic is 100% sound: prove you can negate the result "immobilised" before the vehicle is destroyed. You cannot do so, as you have no permission to interrupt the Immobilised RESULT which is immediately treated as destroyed (wrecked) instead.

Again, 40K rules do not work in this "one-way-street" logic.

Example. Space Marine takes a wound. A one-wound-model that takes a wound is removed from play. BUT, you get an armour-save. If you succeed, the "removal-from-play-resolution-demanded-by-having-taken-a-wound" is negated.

Symbiotic Repair works just like it, only that the result is not random (as in 3+ on a D6) but traded as in -1 wound for a (retro-active) negation of the damage resolution.

As it seems, all the users here agree that when you negate a damage result you avoid all effects that would derive from it. Except nosferatu of course and I don't think anything sort of brain surgery can make him change his mind. So I think we should move on...

I'll just have to agree to disagree with you, Nosferatu, until the FAQ because personally i feel the fact that the CCB actually has a special rule that prevents damaged results from occurring, does indeed prevent them immediately.

As an alternative argument, let's look at how the damage table works when the skimmer *hasn't* boosted. It is open-topped, so the dice roll actually does get a magical +1 pip added to the roll when checking for damage. In this case, rolling a 4 actually does count as rolling a 5, thus the skimmer would be wrecked with no negation from the CCB's symbiotic repair rule allowed. The difference here is the open-topped rule makes the damage table rolls higher, while the skimmer flat-out immobilized rule relies on an actual immobilization result to occur (which gets negated by symbiotic repair, as long as the occupant has more than 1W remaining).

A proper reading of the CCB rule sounds to me like the immobilized result wasn't repaired... it was negated i.e. it didn't happen.

This business of getting hung up on a rigid timeline of the CCB rule not getting to happen because the immobilized result already occurred and triggered an "immediate" wreck is an incorrect application IMHO.

In any tabletop game you are abstracting out results with dice throws and rule books, so there must be some time where results of a particular action are resolved. In this case we get a sense of what the abstraction was intended to be by the choice of words. The author of the rule didn't use "repaired" but "negated". This is important because the former would mean that the vehicle *WAS* immobilized, but the result was subsequently removed (and the vehicle may very well be destroyed if moving flat out). Since the author chose "negate" that means the character wound happens *instead* of the immobilized result.

Like a number of previous posters have pointed out this will need an FAQ to quell arguments. Thanks GW, for the loose rules set and ill defined game turn sequence. (see my signature for how I really feel).

Zweischneid wrote:

Again, 40K rules do not work in this "one-way-street" logic.

Example. Space Marine takes a wound. A one-wound-model that takes a wound is removed from play. BUT, you get an armour-save. If you succeed, the "removal-from-play-resolution-demanded-by-having-taken-a-wound" is negated.

Symbiotic Repair works just like it, only that the result is not random (as in 3+ on a D6) but traded as in -1 wound for a (retro-active) negation of the damage resolution.

Are you given explicit permission, before removing a model, to roll a save to 'negate' the wound? The answer is yes, same with Feel No Pain being provided permission to do so after a failed armor/invulnerable save.

The CCB does not have any 'interrupt' like effect in its wording, it does not matter if it is 'repaired' or 'negated', either way you CANNOT step into the chain of immobilized-->wrecked without permission to do so. By the time you have permission, you are trying to stop an effect (wrecked) that you have no rules to change.

calypso2ts wrote:
The CCB does not have any 'interrupt' like effect in its wording, it does not matter if it is 'repaired' or 'negated', either way you CANNOT step into the chain of immobilized-->wrecked without permission to do so. By the time you have permission, you are trying to stop an effect (wrecked) that you have no rules to change.

Again. It doesn't "interrupt" and it doesn't need to. It "negates" the "chain" as you call it starting from a certain point.

1. Opponent declares to fire weapon at CCB
2. Opponent roles to hit CCB
3. Opponent roles to penetrate AV of CCB
4. Opponent roles on the damage table getting an "immobilized result"
5. Player applies the result of immobilized result to the CCB (said result might be "X" or might be "Y" depending on circumstances)
6. Player rolls a cover save if he is allowed to do so (if successful, everything in the "chain" starting with "4" is "negated" and has no further effect on the game)
7. Player decides if to use the Symbiotic Repair rule (if yes, his Overlord suffers 1 wound and everything in the chain starting with "4" is "negated" and has no further effect on the game)

Whether or not it says explicitly that some form of "chain" is interrupted or not is irrelevant, because their is no mention in the rulebook that there is anything like a "chain" that must be followed uni-directional with no possibility of reversal. The precedent of Armour save, irrespective of the forumlation, shows that this entire construct of a "chain" you keep arguing is a ruse/wishful thinking on your part and has no grounding in the rules as written. Infact, the very reason it doesn't have a formulation like "interrupted" is BECAUSE there is no such thing as a strict, compulsory, one-way-chain of resolving rules in 40K. Or if there is, I'd like to get a page reference.

so by some peoples logic, a venerable dreadknot that recives the destroyed result cannot have that result rerolled because it was destroyed before the owning player can say "reroll that please?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and the steps above switch step 6 to position 4. you roll saves before you roll on damage chart

arch1angel wrote:so by some peoples logic, a venerable dreadknot that recives the destroyed result cannot have that result rerolled because it was destroyed before the owning player can say "reroll that please?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and the steps above switch results 5 and 6 it happends the other way around

Excellent reference. The venerable dreadnought has a special rule that allows the controlling player to force the opponent to re-roll damage results vs the walker. The CCB has a special rule that prevents a damage result from ever happening. Not the same thing but similar enough in my mind to warrant exposition.