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.

And snoogums gets the cookie!

I have to agree with you on that one, although there is the dictionary definition of immobile which gives both options, the book does only give one definition of how a vehicle can become immobile.

Seeing as the SM codex classifies a drop pod as immobile it should probably give up that whopping 15pts as well.

The dictionary definition of immobilize renders you immobile. Yes.

However, if you want to follow dictionary definitions in one place but not another you are being inconsistent.

Either immobilising imparts a game-defined condition called 'immobile' or it imparts a dictionary description 'immobile.' It may not do both and it may not do this selectively as you like.

The rulebook does not define any way for you to become immobile (a game condition).

It describes ways you can be made so that you: "May not move," but it never describes a way you can be made 'immobile.'

Reread the effects of immobilise, Snoogums. Yes I'm being a bit pedantic but reread the rules and the definitions both and at least try to understand what I am saying. What I'm saying has nothing to do with stunning or whatever, it has to do with the raw text of the immobilised rules.

So playing it definition wise:

Immobile means to 'render immobile.'

It does not say 'to render immobile FOREVER AND EVER AMEN.'

It says 'to render immobile.'

If you follow dictionary definitions, then a vehicle is immobile in any turn it does not move. That's slowed.

So we have concluded that you cannot play it by dictionary definitions. Therefore there must be a condition called immobile.

However, there are no rules for the condition immobile anywhere in the book. It's not described anywhere! No one knows what the difference is between immobile and immobilized. We would know if:

1) The 'immobile' description in the VP section said 'immobilized' or
2) The 'immobilised' description said 'renders the vehicle immobile for the rest of the game.' Instead it says 'may not move for the rest of the game.'

The rules on immobilised are p67 of the main rule book.

So what you folks need to do to prove your point is:
1) Prove that the word 'immobile' means 'without capacity for movement' rather than 'unable to move.' I think you'll find a hard time with that, because there is no time qualifier in the word immobile - it leaves that to paragraph writers.

or.

2) Prove that the immobilised result imparts a game condition called 'immobile.' Again you will have a very hard time with this without using dictionary definitions, and if you use dictionary definitions things get all kinds of slowed.

I'm not asking you to tell me you agree with some kind of dumb arsed conclusion like 'no vehicles ever give up vps' or 'all vehicles give up vps.'

I'm asking you to say, "Yes, the rules on immobilised and immobile are distinctly unclear due to the lack of a game condition called immobile."

Posted by Longshot on 06/19/2006 1:08 PM
The dictionary definition of immobilize renders you immobile. Yes

However you've failed to prove that the rules define "may not move or shoot the next turn" as being immobile.

Longshot, snoogums actually makes a good point in that athough there is a dictionary definition of immobile, there is ALSO (and IMO more importantly) the BgB definition. Since everything else that we are talking about is based out of the BGB the definition given by the BGB is the one that should be used as although there are two definitons of one word, the BGB uses the first one.

Where is the BGB definition of immobile exactly? Give me a page reference and I'll shut up and eat my crow

I have proven that 'may not move or shoot' renders you immobile like six times. If you may not move you are immobile per the definition of immobile (unable to move). However, that doesn't make you give up VPs because it is only for one turn.

The rules flat out simply do not define ANYTHING as immobile. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Please. Because I agree this argument is utterly stupid. But this is the rules analysis forum not the 'agree on the best interpretation for a fun game' forum.

When the rules say that the vehicle is 'immobile'. So where does the 'Crew Stunned' result say that the vehicle is immobile?

When do the rules say a vehicle is immobile? Tell me. Give me a page reference please.

I don't know if this will quite be enough in your mind for that crow pie to be eaten but...

Page 67, effects of 'immobilised'

AD&D used to have a glossery of terms at the beginning of it, which would probably kill 99% of rules debates in 40k.

It's these kinds of threads that give Dakka a bad rep elsewhere.

This shouldn't even be DISCUSSED.  Yikes.

I've been quoting the effects of immobilised. Because immobilised doesn't say you are immobile.

p67:
"The vehicle has taken a hit ... It may not move for the rest of the game. An immobilised vehicle blah blah blah'

Give me the word/condition 'immobile' out of there.

Then check p58 for a description of vehicle conditions. I don't think you'll find 'immobile' there either.

p.s. - Iorek, thanks for telling us what we should and should not discuss on the internet. We all appreciate you taking the time to put us on the right track.

Fair enough... I am going to go edit my BGB with whiteout and bic and all of this will be settled. It will be 40.44k (the .44 is the number of MM short of 1" that a round slotta base is)

I guess it all boils down to "GW needs to be consistent in their use of terminology." bush league crap lke this really angers me.

You can always play 40.44k

Posted By Longshot on 06/19/2006 1:03 PM
I've been quoting the effects of immobilised. Because immobilised doesn't say you are immobile.

p67:
"The vehicle has taken a hit ... It may not move for the rest of the game. An immobilised vehicle blah blah blah'

Give me the word/condition 'immobile' out of there.

Then check p58 for a description of vehicle conditions. I don't think you'll find 'immobile' there either.

p.s. - Iorek, thanks for telling us what we should and should not discuss on the internet. We all appreciate you taking the time to put us on the right track.

Your argument is just because it has been immobilized doesn't mean that it is now immobile? Do you dispute that removing models from a squad counts as casualties, because just because they are removed as casualties doesn't mean that they have "taken" casualties?

 

This is a stupid, stupid argument. A model that has been immobilized is now immoble. It's simple simple english. A model that has been stunned:

stun    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (stn)
tr.v. stunned, stun·ning, stuns

1. To daze or render senseless, by or as if by a blow.
2. To overwhelm or daze with a loud noise.
3. To stupefy, as with the emotional impact of an experience; astound. See Synonyms at daze.

n.

<DL> <DD>A blow or shock that stupefies.</DD></DL>

im·mo·bi·lize    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-mb-lz)
tr.v. im·mo·bi·lized, im·mo·bi·liz·ing, im·mo·bi·liz·es

1. To render immobile.
2. To fix the position of (a joint or fractured limb), as with a splint or cast.
3. To impede movement or use of: Severe weather immobilized the rescue team.
4. Economics.
1. To withdraw (specie) from circulation and reserve as security for other money.
2. To convert (floating capital) into fixed capital.

How the hell can you confuse the two?

My argument is that you should not use dictionary definitions. You should use game definitions. I used dictionary definitions to point out how ridiculous it was to use them.

The problem I have is that there is no GAME DEFINITION of immobile.

There is a game definition of 'stunned.' It says you 'may not move' (next turn)

There is a game definition of 'immobilised.' It says you 'may not move' (ever)

The game definition of immobilised does not make you immobile. The real world definition does, but then if you follow the real world definition of 'immobile,' your entire army is immobile at the end of the game.

I'm not confusing stunned and immobilised. It's obvious you didn't read but rather skimmed my arguments. If you're not willing to read them, perhaps you should not comment on them, eh?

Let me elaborate and state my position for the record. My position is that there is no game definition of the term 'immobile.' This is lame. There should be a game definition of immobile. Because there is not, and because the term immobile is only used in one place in the entire book (VPs) it is unclear from an analytical standpoint what the rules mean. It is not unclear from a gameplay standpoint because none of us is an idiot. But the rules writing screwed the pooch on immobile/immobilised.

If a word is not explicitely defined in the rules, we must use the real world definition of it.

Regardless, this thread is ridiculous. No one has even given a half azzed argument that stunned is ever immobile.

Posted By Longshot on 06/19/2006 1:03 PM
p.s. - Iorek, thanks for telling us what we should and should not discuss on the internet. We all appreciate you taking the time to put us on the right track.

Not a problem!  ~tips hat~

Actually Ed, I thought I gave a very half azzed argment.

P 67 under crew stunned, it notes the vehicle may not move or shoot.

To be immobile is to not be able to move. Even if you use the definition "to render immobile" it is immoblised, immobile does not infer a permanent state therefor a vehicle is immobile if it has been stunned.

Again, this is dumb...

And inaccurate.

Just because two effects share similar results does not mean that they are equal.

Stopsigns are red and metallic.
Firetrucks are red and metallic.

This does not mean that Stopsigns are Firetrucks.

Precision counts Happypants.

Stunned vehicles can't move next turn. There are no more turns at the end of the game.

But I'll admit, your argument was indeed half azzed.

I am stunned by this thread.

But not immobile (yet).

OK. If a word is defined in the rules (immobilised) we use the game definition.

If a word is not defined in the rules -immobile - we use the real world definition. The real world definition of immobile is 'unable to move.' At the end of the game all vehicles are 'unable to move,' because nothing can move after the end of the game - things can only move during their turn. Yes that is slowed and clearly they meant 'was it capable of moving had the game continued.'

slowed. They need to define the vehicle state 'immobile' under vehicle characteristics, as one of the qualities of a vehicle - e.g. 'skimmer' 'fast' 'walker' 'tank,' et cetera. Then they need to decide whether that vehicle state should apply to immobilised vehicles, instead of a nebulous 'may not move until the end of the game' condition, which seems to be immobile but is not explicitly stated to be such.

It pisses me off because if they'd written 'immobilised' as I suspect was intended, and given immobile vehicles the same requirements as Artillery for garnering victory points, it would be without question and also not stupid. It's just such a bunch of half-arsed crap to leave things undefined when it would cost nothing to define them. Everything should be 'cause' and 'condition' and there should be no question as to what is which. A unit that is forced to flee acquires the 'falling back' descriptor. A tank that is stunned acquires the 'stunned' descriptor, which means such and such. A vehicle that is immobilised acquires the 'immobile' condition, not the 'may not move for the rest of the game.'

Or GW could be assuming that people who can't work out what is and isn't immobile for themselves, its not that difficult to work out. I really don't think its GW thats being slowed as you put it.

Just out of curiousity, whats next? Maybe you can make an issue about the fact that GW didn't define the action of 'rolling' a D6 to actually mean dropping it in such a manner as to produce a random result; thus making it perfectly acceptable to just put them down with the face up of your choice?

Again, you're trying to change what GW wrote. If they wanted a stunned vehicle to be immobile, then they would have said that the vehicle "... is immobile and may not shoot next turn." Yet they specifically went with the phrase "... may not move or shoot next turn."

It doesn't matter if 'immobile' and 'may not move' are synonyms. They're still not the same words. Stop trying to make the rules say one thing when they actually say something else.

Its time bring out the old favorite.... It is indeed time.

 

 

In the new DA codex (or it might be the ork one, I'm not fully conscious as I type this) they're bringing back the wargear cards. One of 'em is called "slap down!" - when played, this card allows you to slap your opponent across the crotch, earning 5vp for you, and 10vp for him (or 12vp if it happens to be a her). Should sort out sitiations like this quite effectively.

Personally i can't wait for the "Billy club" card.
It's basically an ultramarine variant of what you just described there, but x10 cos ultramarines are the roXXor!!!1!

Darkchild

I hope they come out with the vaunted "Dude, I totally just sneezed snot on your miniatures" card.  I've been wanting to use that for years.

Is that the nurgle only one or the smurf one that does the same but x2 cos it's like, the snot of the emperor?

Darkchild