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.

Except we ran into this problem a couple of years ago locally and worked it out back then...so if you were to come here player would expect you to know that its a 4+ situation since thats the way we have been playing it. We had to decide when it was brought up in one of our league games and the players came to me (as the TO for the league) about how to play it. We talked things through and ever since its been a 4+.

So while 99% (or 99.99% as some in this post have claimed) may play by one sert of house rules, our couple of dozen players (and both local TOs) have been playing it by 4+ for a long time. Was the 99% plus determined by a poll btw?


Sliggoth

I dont think ANYONE should ever have to roll to hit a monolith.

"Your monolith is so hugely awesome you must bring 3 to every event and be "that guy", it moves really slow and cannot be destroyed by glancing hits, further, your monolith is so big, attacks at it will never miss."

there, i want to see this in their next book, make it happen GW!

Sliggoth - UK GT plays it as autohit, every tournament ive been to inthe UK (not hundreds, but some big ones over a number of years) have played autohit.

So while 99% (or 99.99% as some in this post have claimed) may play by one sert of house rules

It is not a house rule though. Your interpretation is a house rule, because you've had to make up what has happened before the battle, we're just following what the rules say in a given situation (the vehicle having not moved).

FlingitNow wrote:

So while 99% (or 99.99% as some in this post have claimed) may play by one sert of house rules

It is not a house rule though. Your interpretation is a house rule, because you've had to make up what has happened before the battle, we're just following what the rules say in a given situation (the vehicle having not moved).

No, that is not what the rules say.

The rules say NOTHING about what should happen. No matter WHAT you do, it is a house rule.
Your constant insistence that the RaW is not the rules is getting really tiresome. If the RaW are not the rules, what are? The Rules as NOT Written? The Rules as you think they are Written?

Gwar angry! Gwar smash?

Trolling aside, Gwar is correct. The problem is that the rules don't say what should happen. While most people say they haven't moved yet, per RAW, like Gwar says, the game explodes and Slaneesh is sexing Ptera-squirrels... or something along those lines.

Any action is an in House rule when assaulting on the first turn. Honestly though, it rarely happens on a consistent basis with most players, except for me, since I play Multi-wing.

FlingitNow wrote:RaW =/= RaI, and whilst RaW remains silent onm this issue the rulebook makes it pretty clear how you would resolve this issue.

So, the Rules as Written are silent on the issue, but the rulebook is clear...

What does that even mean?

The Rules as Written are silent on the issue, but the Rule[s as written]book is clear?

You do realize this is a self-contradictory and nonsensical sentence, right? If the RAW is -silent- on an issue, then it is the opposite of clear how to resolve it.

Auto-hit is a house rule, albeit one relatively widely adopted.

Gwar! wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:It is not a house rule though. Your interpretation is a house rule, because you've had to make up what has happened before the battle, we're just following what the rules say in a given situation (the vehicle having not moved).

No, that is not what the rules say.

The rules say NOTHING about what should happen. No matter WHAT you do, it is a house rule.
Your constant insistence that the RaW is not the rules is getting really tiresome. If the RaW are not the rules, what are? The Rules as NOT Written? The Rules as you think they are Written?

It's the Rules As Written With The Bits That FlingitNow Finds Inconvenient Ignored.

RAWWTBTFFNII

I don't think that's going to catch on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:I also think ignoring parts of the rulebook wording to interpret the rules is entirely valid.

Ignoring part of a rule is changing it. That's not a problem but don't claim that your change is somehow more justified by the rule than someone else's.

The rules say NOTHING about what should happen. No matter WHAT you do, it is a house rule.

No auto-hit is following the rules.

So, the Rules as Written are silent on the issue, but the rulebook is clear...

What does that even mean?

It means that literalism isn;t the only way to interpret the English language. For instance the RaW is clear that the Doom of Malantai does not get a 3+ invulnerable save. However the Codex is clear that he does and he does in the rules. Just not by RaW.

It's the Rules As Written With The Bits That FlingitNow Finds Inconvenient Ignored.

RAWWTBTFFNII

I don't think that's going to catch on.

No it is the rules as interpreted by someone able to understand English beyond the literal. Just like in a legal battle it is perfectly acceptable to ignore the lettering of the law if the spirit and intention behind the law is different. Why would it be any different for a rulebook?

Ignoring part of a rule is changing it. That's not a problem but don't claim that your change is somehow more justified by the rule than someone else's.

I'm not ignoring part of a rule I'm ignoring part of the wording in the rulebook. Just like I ignore the part of the wording in the 'Nid codex that states that only Zoanthropes get a 3++ save from Warp field and that the Doom does not benefit.

Just like you ignore the wording that Eldrad and Captain Tycho are dead and therefore should be immediately removed whenever they come into play...

@ Flingitnow Im sorry, but in this case you are indeed making an interpretation of the rules, and are not following the actual rules. Your interpretaion is that the vehicle being stationary in its previous turn means that at the start of the game vehicles are treated as if they were stationary just before the game began so they are "close enough" to the rule so that it applies.

However, from both a physical point of view and a fluff point of view this view is incorrect.

From a physical view the last stage before the first turn was deployment. And during the deployment the vehicle is being physically moved onto the table. So was the vehicle stationary during deployment? No, it was placed or moved onto the table.


From a fluff point of view we have two armies approaching the battlefield to begin combat. Do these armies drive and march up...and then wait in place for a ref to come out to blow a whistle signifying the start of combat? Or do these armies move towards each other and then engage? Especially in the case of orks (who are the most common army to be able to launch first tuirn assaults) fluff would lead one to believe that they attack early and often, so the vehicles would have been moving in the recent past.


So yes, an interpetation that the vehicles have not moved recently is *possible*, but its certainly reasonable to think from other points of view that the vehicles were NOT stationary recently.


So auto hit is not follwoing either RAW or several valid interpretations of the "rules". Or RAI as some call it.

Its certainly easy enough to talk fast and convince people that its an autohit of course, if they dont really know the rules. But then its possible to talk people into many strange things.



Sliggoth

So auto hit is not follwoing either RAW or several valid interpretations of the "rules". Or RAI as some call it.

No RaI is that the vehicles are autohit that is what I'm saying. You could choose to play it differently or choose to interpret it differently but what I'm saying is that the answer is obvious enough for me to say I'm sure that is how they intend it to work. Just as I'm sure the Doom is supposed to have a useful invulnerable save.

What the RaW fundamentalists like to right of RaI as is that it is an interpretation or that there is more than 1 possible outcome. RaI is the rules and the outcome is a given right or wrong. Unfortunately in order to get that result you'd have to ask GW to publish an FaQ, however sometimes the answer is so blindly obvious that you can work it out without needing to ask GW.

In such cases as this, The Doom's 3++ save, Bjorn's 5++ save, Shrike's inflitrate ability. Where following the RaW in any of these cases would in fact be making a house rule.

Yes, in some cases its pretty apparent what RAI may be. The three cases you list there certainly do seem very clear for what RAI actually is, even tho by strict raw they arent covered. These cases make sense to be played one way, and there is nothing except the strict raw to not allow them to be played that way...so people go against the raw and play it by "common sense" rai.

For this case, the cc with vehicles on the first turn, RAI is not nearly so clear cut. Ive shown you bith by the actual physical occurences (they are moved during deployment) and the most commonly uinderstood fluff how RAI is NOT to have it be an auto hit.

Your interpretation is different from that, but simply because its the way its played most commonly at the tournies that you attend doesnt mean thats its universally accepted RAI.


Sliggoth

We've always played it as a 4+ though if someone wanted a auto hit badly enough I don't think I'd complain all that much.


This is one of those rules where there is no right or wrong. There is just the way you chose to play it.

FlingitNow wrote:No RaI is that the vehicles are autohit that is what I'm saying. You could choose to play it differently or choose to interpret it differently but what I'm saying is that the answer is obvious enough for me to say I'm sure that is how they intend it to work. Just as I'm sure the Doom is supposed to have a useful invulnerable save.

This is classic. As soon as someone starts arguing that it's "obvious" then you know they've got no more real argument.

If that's how you think it ought to work then that's fine. To say it's RAI is a total fallacy though since the structure of the close combat vs vehicles table indicates pretty strongly that they hadn't even considered the possiblity of a first turn vehicle assault. (since it would have been extremely easy to make provision for this possibility)

I'm curious why Fling can't just say "I play it this way because..." rather than trying to have the rulebook validate him?

Fling isn't the only one that plays it this way. He's the only one with the patience to continue to try to convince a splinter group of gamers why they're wrong. God bless him.

@Monster rain For someone who claimed that 99.99% of people played that it was an autohit it would appear that perhaps the only thing proven wrong in this thread is that stat. More than one in ten thousand appear to just perhaps play it as something other than an autohit.


Sliggoth

Meh. Considering that no one has ever brought it up outside of this thread in my experience(subjective, I know) I'll reserve judgement on the stats. Request a poll, I'd be interested to see the result.

The reason most people play it as an auto-hit is that they have actually never thought the situation through. Once people take a look at what the rulebook really says, suddenly there is a question, but by that point, they have the auto-hit so strongly ingrained in their heads that it will not change.

....There was another thread where this was being debated just a couple weeks ago.

The main problem with this rules issue and others like it is that the question very seldom actually comes up. And when it does come up, people tend to go along with what seems reasonable if the person quoting the rules has a reasonable arguement.


It seems that ard boyz in some places goes with the auto hit version. Its likely that when this first came up a TO made a judgement at the time for the game it was in, and that became standard practice since the player doing the first turn assault could always refer people back to that TO. It would make a lot of sense if it was in a game where orks were attacking a defended position....obviously the defenders wouldnt be moving.

Here, it first came up in a game where orks were attacking a SM position..byt the SM player spoke up and said "of course the vehicles would have been moving earlier...can you imagine any orks and SM just sitting there and staring at each other for an hour?" Made a lot of sense to the ork player so from that point forward we went with 4+, and its been that way since for our league and tourneys.

Each area will likely have developed their own house rules for this over the years...for those areas where its even come up.


Sliggoth

Deployment counting as movement causes more problems than it solves though. Fluff Justification is even more of a slippery slope than RAI arguments.

I agree that it is an auto-hit. But, I think RAW does explain it. When you're placed on the board in deployment, you don't actually "move" onto the battlefield. If you did, you wouldn't be able to move 24" up to the line in Dawn of War. No infantry unit can move 24". It's not a "movement", but "deployment". That being said, when you look at the chart for how to hit a vehicle, sure, there was no "previous turn", but the vehicle still did not move. If you look past the chart at the note:

"Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved, only take into account the actual distance covered from its original position."

How far did the deployed Land Raider move from its original position? Well, it deployed there, so it moved 0" from its previous position, as it did not have a previous position. Therefore, it is auto-hit.

While I know what the RAW purists are saying (since the chart says "previous turn"), I think RAI is auto-hit. I mean, there is just as little defense for the +4 reading as there is for the auto-hit reading, except the auto-hit reading has one thing to actually back it up - that the vehicle hasn't moved.

Again Occam's Razor with respect to RAW interpretations. Don't overcomplicate. The simplest answer is most often the correct one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Deployment counting as movement causes more problems than it solves though. Fluff Justification is even more of a slippery slope than RAI arguments.

Agreed. Do you roll for difficult/dangerous terrain when you deploy into a piece of terrain, even if you haven't moved yet? If you "deployed" into difficult/dangerous terrain and deployment is movement, you better roll that dangerous terrain test to make sure you're good to go.

puma713 wrote:
While I know what the RAW purists are saying (since the chart says "previous turn"), I think RAI is auto-hit. I mean, there is just as little defense for the +4 reading as there is for the auto-hit reading, except the auto-hit reading has one thing to actually back it up - that the vehicle hasn't moved.

The 4+ reading has something to back it up as well - that the vehicle hasn't remained stationary.

puma713 wrote:
Agreed. Do you roll for difficult terrain when you deploy into a piece of terrain, even if you haven't moved yet? If you "deployed" into difficult terrain and deployment is movement, you better roll that difficult terrain test to make sure you're good to go.

Nobody claimed that deploying is movement. However, you claim that deploying is a form of remaining stationary, without any rules to back this up.

thebetter1 wrote:

puma713 wrote:
While I know what the RAW purists are saying (since the chart says "previous turn"), I think RAI is auto-hit. I mean, there is just as little defense for the +4 reading as there is for the auto-hit reading, except the auto-hit reading has one thing to actually back it up - that the vehicle hasn't moved.

The 4+ reading has something to back it up as well - that the vehicle hasn't remained stationary.

It hasn't? How far was its last move? Well it didn't have a "last move". Therefore, it must have remained stationary.

thebetter1 wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Agreed. Do you roll for difficult terrain when you deploy into a piece of terrain, even if you haven't moved yet? If you "deployed" into difficult terrain and deployment is movement, you better roll that difficult terrain test to make sure you're good to go.

Nobody claimed that deploying is movement. However, you claim that deploying is a form of remaining stationary, without any rules to back this up.

No, I'm not claiming that deployment is a form of remaining stationary. I'm claiming the fact that the vehicle hasn't moved (since deployment isn't movement, remember), and so, it is considered "stationary".

puma713 wrote:
It hasn't? How far was its last move? Well it didn't have a "last move". Therefore, it must have remained stationary.

A bit arbitrary there? I'll twist around your argument a bit...

Did the vehicle remain stationary last move? Well it didn't have a "last move". Therefore, it could not have remained stationary last move, and must have moved.

thebetter1 wrote:

puma713 wrote:
It hasn't? How far was its last move? Well it didn't have a "last move". Therefore, it must have remained stationary.

A bit arbitrary there? I'll twist around your argument a bit...

Did the vehicle remain stationary last move? Well it didn't have a "last move". Therefore, it could not have remained stationary last move, and must have moved.

And therefore, you're calling deployment movement?

That's what I was getting at with Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is: how far did the vehicle last move? 0". Then it was/is stationary. A more complicated answer is: how far did the vehicle last move? Well, what does "last move" count as? There was no "previous turn", so you can't talk about movement, really. . .etc., etc., etc.

puma713 wrote:
And therefore, you're calling deployment movement?

No, I am not. What does deployment have to do with anything at all, anyway?

puma713 wrote:
That's what I was getting at with Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is: how far did the vehicle last move? 0". Then it was/is stationary. A more complicated answer is: how far did the vehicle last move? Well, what does "last move" count as? There was no "previous turn", so you can't talk about movement, really. . .etc., etc., etc.

No, the vehicle's last move is not 0''. I would like to see you write a computer program with that kind of philosophy.

@ thebetter1: Making up imaginary stories as to why the vehicle should count as having moved isn't isn't outlined in the BRB either iirc.

...................by RAW its already been agreed by everyone else in the thread on both (every, there might be more than 2 here...) sides that there is NO answer.

RAW doesnt cover it. Its a house rule in any way to hit the vehicle.



Sliggoth

Monster Rain wrote:@ thebetter1: Making up imaginary stories as to why the vehicle should count as having moved isn't isn't outlined in the BRB either iirc.

Am I the one who brought up all the crap about deployment? No. I have not brought fluff into this at all. Making up imaginary stories as to why the vehicle should count as stationary is definitely not outlined in the BRB.

For me, the amount of semantics and chicanery involved in saying with a straight face that a vehicle that hasn't moved since the beginning of the game isn't stationary is a strike against the argument in and of itself. What if there were units making a Scout move? Do their movements count too? Do they get a cover save if they moved flat out? Do they have the radio on in the cockpit? You see where I'm going here?