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.

 Kriswall wrote:
Insaniak is 100% correct on this one.

I'm going to grit my teeth a bit because I want them to snap fire, but the rules are quite clear. Well done Insaniak, negating all possibility of a counterargument.

That means stop trying to make an argument. The rules are clear, if you say otherwise you're wrong.

 kingbobbito wrote:
I'm going to grit my teeth a bit because I want them to snap fire, ...

I'm in the same boat. The condition should continue to apply, IMO, but the wording of the rule means it doesn't.

I strongly suspect that if GW FAQd this one, they would enforce the snap fire.

Heh, an FAQ on an FAQ. Only from GW.

Bojazz wrote:
Heh, an FAQ on an FAQ..

Not quite... The FAQ deals with skimmers having jink (although they seriously botched that one.)... not on how Jink works.

I'm a bad rules lawyer, but there's two ways to change this, right?

Change the FAQ to just "immobilized skimmers cannot attempt jink saves"

Or, change jink rules to "models that used the jink ability can only fire snap shots the following turn"

Correct?

I understand that by necessity the game is in turns, because it would be really confusing it's both rolling dice at the same time where nothing could really be declared as first... It would be like back when we were kids and we used sticks as guns and chased each other and said "I shot you" then the other person saying "I shot you first"

Are you guys arguing that I fire then you move, then you die, then I move... Like an 18th century duel with pistols?
Because if so, I don't want to talk with any of you.
If instead, this is a battle field where we are actually exchanging fire at the same time and the turns help us not have a he said she said moment like when we were children. Or we are not trying to be... Munchkiny powergamers... Then it seems pretty clear what gw meant.

The vehicle banking and flying erratically is popping off shots and is shot down. His shots, while flying erratically are erratic... After being immobilized he can't continue to jink he's been shot down, but technically you haven't rolled the shots you already took while flying erratically.

Not to mention, crashing because you hover... Hence why you even can jink and have the ability to be immobilized... And yet you feel the erratic flying and crashing shouldn't effect your shooting at all... Sounds like your just need advantages to win at tiny plastic men. It's like when I went to pee during a tournament and my opponent said "I shouldn't have to wait" I said "oh continue rolling I'll only be a second" he said " wait what? How do you know I won't cheat?" "I replied, if you're cheating at tiny plastic men, you have more problems than I have time to correct"

FratHammer wrote:
Are you guys arguing that I fire then you move, then you die, then I move... Like an 18th century duel with pistols?

I'm not even sure what you mean here.


That doesn't sound like the normal turn sequence, though.

Had to edit a bit my fat fingers hit submit early.

The edit didn't help. You seem to be complaining about people having a different attitude towards the game than yours, rather than making an actual point about the discussion at hand.

If you're saying the game is turn based not dynamic it's clear.
I'm saying you can see it either way. But one way, in my opinion, is relying on poorly written rules to win games rather than tactics and strategy.

Both are fine ways to play a game. One way just costs more money for all those wave serpents.

FratHammer wrote:
The vehicle banking and flying erratically is popping off shots and is shot down. His shots, while flying erratically are erratic... After being immobilized he can't continue to jink he's been shot down, but technically you haven't rolled the shots you already took while flying erratically.

Well like I said on the previous page, it's either both effects are negated instantly or neither effect is negated.

But you do have to assume a sequence, because that's how the game works, I move and then shoot and then assault then you move and then shoot then assault. Even if "reality" might not happen in sequence, the game does.

But anyway, either you say that:

1. You jink and get immobilised, but the effects of jinking last until the next movement/shooting phase even though you're immobilised, but if you're still immobilised when you get shot at next turn, you don't have the option to jink. This line of thinking comes from the fact that the moment you say you're jinking, you gain the cover save and snap shots, the only end clause is "next movement/shooting phase". So you keep both the 4+ cover save AND have to snap shoot until then.

2. You jink and get immobilised, the effects of jinking are removed. You lose both the cover save AND the snap shots.

There's no way you can say from the way the rules are written that you lose the cover save but still have to take snap shots.

Actually someone just covered why jink is worded as it is on another question and stumbled into our answer.

Jink is worded as out is so if I take a warboss in a bike with Flashgitz, and he jinks, the unit is not punished nor does the unit gain a cover saves. You're using the wording for a purpose gw was to inept to foresee. Because they are quite obviously not rules lawyers

We need a FAQ. For a FAQ.

This whole discussion seems to be under the understanding that somehow a unit that has declared a Jink while having the special rule will lose the Snap shots and the 4+ save once a Immobilized result has been suffered. I have looked all over my rulebook and I can not find that anywhere. The wording of the rule says that if you declare a Jink (invoking the special rule), you will have a 4+ save until their next movement phase, but will also have to Snap Shot as a result.

I see no part of the rule that leads me to believe that the Snap shots check whether the model still has the Jink special rule in their shooting phase. The rule calls to check whether a model has the Jink USR when the player declares a Jink. Having declared a Jink, the model then has a 4+ save and will fire snap shots. The reason that the Jink rule has to check for whether the models in a unit have the Jink rule is, as FratHammer says, you can have models in a unit that do and do not have the Jink USR. Models that don't have the rule don't get the save and the restriction, while those that do have it get the save and the restriction.

As for the FAQ, it states that a Skimmer that is not Heavy or immobilized has the Jink Special rule. If you have a skimmer or flyer and decide to not Jink a shooting attack and suffer an immobilized result, then you can no longer declare a Jink on following attacks. If you have declared to be Jinking, you will take your saves on those attacks and on all following attacks until their next movement phase and will fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn. You do not declare to be Jinking for each individual attack. You already have your save until your next movement phase.

If someone can point out where they see that a Jinking model loses its save when it is Immobilized, I will gladly reconsider my opinion. All the FAQ says to me is that after a Immobilized result a model that had the Jink special rule loses it, so that it can not declare a Jink in the future.

This is just my opinion, so feel free to ignore it if you want.

From 'Jink' in the main rulebook:

If the unit Jinks, all models in the unit with this special rule gain a 4+ cover save until the start of their next Movement phase, but they can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn.

If they're immobilized, according to the FAQ they no longer have the 'Jink' special rule so the passage I quoted above would not apply to them.

I read that Ghaz, but that only tells you that when you declare a Jink, you need that rule to gain anything. It doesn't tell you that you can lose those thing for any reason. It also doesn't tell you to check back when you go to your shooting phase to make sure you still have that rule.

There is ultimately no way to answer the differences in what we are interpreting here. You see that statement as forcing you to continuously check whether you still have Jink or not. I see it as saying that you check when you invoke the rule and then don't need to check it again. As we didn't write it, we will always disagree I guess.

Freezerassasin wrote:
I read that Ghaz, but that only tells you that when you declare a Jink, you need that rule to gain anything. It doesn't tell you that you can lose those thing for any reason.

If you need the rule to gain the benefit, and the associated penalty, why wouldn't not having the rule remove that benefit and penalty?

It also doesn't tell you to check back when you go to your shooting phase to make sure you still have that rule.

It also doesn't tell you not to.

It's not a matter of 'checking back'... It's a matter of a rule that forces you to fire snap shots not being at all relevant until you try to shoot with the unit.

Freezerassasin wrote:
I read that Ghaz, but that only tells you that when you declare a Jink, you need that rule to gain anything. It doesn't tell you that you can lose those thing for any reason. It also doesn't tell you to check back when you go to your shooting phase to make sure you still have that rule.

There is ultimately no way to answer the differences in what we are interpreting here. You see that statement as forcing you to continuously check whether you still have Jink or not. I see it as saying that you check when you invoke the rule and then don't need to check it again. As we didn't write it, we will always disagree I guess.

No, it tells you that you need that rule to both gain a 4+ cover save and be forced to fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn.

Unless you're suggesting that, once immobilised, models in the unit that elected to Jink before being immobilised still have a 4+ cover save until the start of their next Movement Phase as well?

Freezerassasin wrote:
I read that Ghaz, but that only tells you that when you declare a Jink, you need that rule to gain anything. It doesn't tell you that you can lose those thing for any reason. It also doesn't tell you to check back when you go to your shooting phase to make sure you still have that rule.

There is ultimately no way to answer the differences in what we are interpreting here. You see that statement as forcing you to continuously check whether you still have Jink or not. I see it as saying that you check when you invoke the rule and then don't need to check it again. As we didn't write it, we will always disagree I guess.

And where does it say that you keep the benefits of 'Jink' if you no longer have the rule? If you don't have the special rule, you don't benefit from said special rule.

Mr. Shine, I do believe that you would keep the 4+ save until their next movement phase as nothing says that you lose the save if you are immobilized.

The benefit and penalty are both given lengths of time that they are in effect for, being till their next movement phase and until the end of their next turn. As it is never said that these benefits can be cancelled by anything happening to the model in question, my opinion is that you keep the benefit and penalty until the time period for both expires. If you lose the rule to Jink, you can not declare a new Jink.

As for the need to check back, this rule is not at all relevant to your shooting phase. You having used the rule in the turn before is what makes the restrictions relevant. As I said already, the benefits and penalties are given clear time periods in which they effect the unit, so the only thing that matters is if you used the rule to trigger the benefits and penalties. Being unable to trigger the benefits and penalties in the future has no bearing on previous actions.

I do find it odd that people are okay with an interpretation that gives someone all the benefits of Jinking and none of the downside. You can continue to play however you want, but I wanted to at least present the other interpretation that I personally think is right. I have nothing on the line here, as I don't play with skimmers, but I thought the discussion should be had.

Except you don't meet the requirement, and that is by being a model with the 'Jink' special rule. You lose the save because you lose the special rule that gives you the save in the first place.

Freezerassasin wrote:
I do find it odd that people are okay with an interpretation that gives someone all the benefits of Jinking and none of the downside. .

People aren't suggesting any such thing. What people are saying is that if the benefit applies, so does the penalty... and if the benefit [i]doesn't apply, then neither does the penalty.

The benefit and penalty are both given lengths of time that they are in effect for,...

Yes, it is. But it is also given a specific thing that it applies to.

For the listed duration, models with Jink receive the benefit and the penalty. If the model doesn't have Jink, then neither of those things are applies to it.

I would argue that the benefit still applies, but that is just my opinion.

What in the rules indicate that you'd continue to receive a benefit from a rule that you no longer have? The duration of the rule doesn't override the fact that you're required to have the rule in order to take advantage of it.

Ok, to try and stop us continually going around and around I am going to go through 2 examples here to make sure we are understanding each other. I'll start with what I believe most people on here are trying to argue.

We have a skimmer. It is shot at by an opponent and the controlling player decides to Jink. As we have seen from all of the post of the exact wording of the Jink rule, we check to see that all of the models in the declared unit have the Jink special rule. All the models that have the rule now have a 4+ cover save until the beginning of their next movement phase, but as payment they are forced to only make Snap Shots until the end of their next turn. The model suffers a penetrating hit and the controlling player fails the save. This results in the skimmer being immobilized. From the recent FAQ, immobilized skimmers lose the Jink special rule. The majority opinion on here is that the skimmer that has already Jinked and used saving throws from it immediately lose the ability to make further saves. However, with the lose of the rule, the opinion is that the skimmer doesn't have to make Snap Shots anymore, since it no longer has the Jink special rule.

I hope this sums up the arguments I have been hearing on here and I am not missing things. My problem with this argument is that while the model had the Jink special rule, it used it to get a potential benefit (a 4+ save till the beginning of their next Movement phase) by agreeing to a penalty (having to fire Snap Shots until the end of the next turn. By rolling the resultant saves, the player has agreed to pay the penalty. Saying that by losing the Jink USR from the immobilized result leads to you not having to follow through with the penalty that they agreed on to get the saves that they tried and failed does not make sense to me as the rule was already acted upon. The Snap Shot restriction checks whether the model Jinked last turn (which it did), not whether it stal has the ability to Jink in the future. The ability to Jink in the future does not impact the actions and penalties that have already happened and been agreed to.

Now I will go through what I am arguing for. Please feel free to question or comment on anything you think I am doing wrong.

We have a skimmer. It is shot at by an opponent and the controlling player decides to Jink. As we have seen from all of the post of the exact wording of the Jink rule, we check to see that all of the models in the declared unit have the Jink special rule. All the models that have the rule now have a 4+ cover save until the beginning of their next movement phase, but as payment they are forced to only make Snap Shots until the end of their next turn. The model suffers a penetrating hit and the controlling player fails the save. This results in the skimmer being immobilized. From the recent FAQ, immobilized skimmers lose the Jink special rule. My opinion is that the lose of the Jink USR does not effect the current turn. When the attacks were made, the model was able to Jink and elected to do so. This grants the model its 4+ save until their next Movement phase. It also forces them to make Snap shots until the end of their next turn. So, to go by the exact wording of the benefits and penalties received by declaring a Jink, the model would continue to receive the 4+save on any additional shooting attacks until that players next Movement phase but will also have to fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn. The conditions laid out in the Jink USR when the player took their saves is followed until there prescribed end points.

The situation in which the FAQ really comes in to play is if, in the scenario I am using, the skimmer does not Jink the attack and suffers the immobilized result. Now, with the lose of the Jink USR the model is not able to declare a Jink against any other shooting attacks for the rest of the game. It also matters in the above examples because they would not be able to Jink in following turns after being immobilized.

Now, I congratulate anyone that made it through that. I look forward to discussing this in a hopefully reasonable way.

My opinion is that the lose of the Jink USR does not effect the current turn.

So where are you getting permission to keep treating the model as having a rule that it just lost?

You're partially correct, in that the effect of Jinking lasts for the specified time. The problem is that the effect of Jinking is something that specifically applies to models with the Jink rule. So any time Jink applies that effect to the unit, it only affects those models with the rule.

The whole point of my last post was to show that Jink as a rule comes fully in to effect when it is declared, so doesn't care that the Jink rule is not present in the next shooting phase. All it cares about is the fact that the unit did Jink, causing the need Snap Shoot as stated when the unit enacted the rule. I do not see a problem from the model losing the Jink rule. As you have said, the fact that it has Jinked is not being argued. A unit that has Jinked gets the 4+ cover save. A unit that has Jinked must fire Snap Shots. Both of these check the past state of the model, mainly if it Jinked. It doesn't matter to the rule whether it can be enacted again.

I might ask you Insaniak where you are getting permission to disregard half of a rule you have already implemented? If you Jinked and took your saves, you have only followed through with half of the rule. I don't see what lets you out of the other half. I don't think that saying because I can't implement it again means I don't have to finish the implementation I am half way through.

We are both making different assumption about a scenario that I don't think exist in any other part of the game. You are making the assumption that the penalties for Jinking require you to have Jinked and still be capable of Jinking again. I am making the assumption that the rule is fully enforced when the Jink is declared, and must follow the given penalties and benefits for their given time periods. Without dragging the writers of the rules out and slapping them around a little, we will never know which assumption is right. I believe in mine in that it follows exactly what the benefits and punishment of Jinking are. This might not be a problem that we can honestly answer. I now understand more where you are coming from Insaniak, but we might have to agree to disagree.

You are making the assumption that the penalties for Jinking require you to have Jinked and still be capable of Jinking again

No, I'm not. I'm making the assumption that a rule that applies to a model with the Jink rule only applies to models with the Jink rule.

The unit Jinked... So the effects of Jink apply to the unit. But those effects only apply to models within the unit that have the Jink rule.

Okay, I give up

Freezerassasin wrote:
A unit that has Jinked gets the 4+ cover save. A unit that has Jinked must fire Snap Shots.

False. A model with the jink rule, in a unit that has jinked, gets the 4+ cover save. Otherwise a bike in a group of infantry could jink, and the whole unit would get a cover save. The cover save only applies to units that have the jink USR.

When a skimmer becomes immobilized, does it have the jink special rule? No. The second it loses that hull point, it's stuck where it's at and it loses the jink USR.

Now go back to the rule. The 4+ cover save applies to models with the jink USR. Does the skimmer have the jink USR when it is immobilized? No.

Any shots on the skimmer later this turn don't suffer from the 4+ cover save. The same would apply for shooting next turn, it's no longer jinking, no longer snap fires.