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.

Hi guys.

I have one question, I know it is probably a silly one.... Am I reading correctly that if a skimmer decides to jinx in order to get 4+ save, it can only snap shot (and not move etc), or does it mean it can only fire snap shots in shooting phase but normally move, assault etc...

Thanx

Read it again untill it strikes, nah just joking If you decide to jink it only makes you snap shot nothing else as told on the jink.

Jinx (n): cause of misfortune: an unseen force, a person, or something such as a curse that is thought to bring bad luck

Jinks (v): dodge: to make a quick sideways movement in order to evade somebody or something

Apologies as your primary language is probably Croatian, but it was bothering me for some reason.

The only change is that it fires snap shots and has a 4+ cover save. Everything else it could normally do it still does.

Am I right in thinking that a skimmer that jinked can't fire template weapons because of the snap firing?

Yes you are correct

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Jinx (n): cause of misfortune: an unseen force, a person, or something such as a curse that is thought to bring bad luck

Jinks (v): dodge: to make a quick sideways movement in order to evade somebody or something

Apologies as your primary language is probably Croatian, but it was bothering me for some reason.

I hate when people do this as well. There is a guy at my shop that says this all the time and it is like nails on a chalkboard.

RJCarrot wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Jinx (n): cause of misfortune: an unseen force, a person, or something such as a curse that is thought to bring bad luck

Jinks (v): dodge: to make a quick sideways movement in order to evade somebody or something

Apologies as your primary language is probably Croatian, but it was bothering me for some reason.

I hate when people do this as well. There is a guy at my shop that says this all the time and it is like nails on a chalkboard.

What?

Jinx and Jinks sound identical when pronounced correctly...

 DeathReaper wrote:

RJCarrot wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Jinx (n): cause of misfortune: an unseen force, a person, or something such as a curse that is thought to bring bad luck

Jinks (v): dodge: to make a quick sideways movement in order to evade somebody or something

Apologies as your primary language is probably Croatian, but it was bothering me for some reason.

I hate when people do this as well. There is a guy at my shop that says this all the time and it is like nails on a chalkboard.

What?

Jinx and Jinks sound identical when pronounced correctly...

Saying "I'm going to Jinx (or Jinks)" instead of "I'm going to Jink"?

Zimko wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

RJCarrot wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Jinx (n): cause of misfortune: an unseen force, a person, or something such as a curse that is thought to bring bad luck

Jinks (v): dodge: to make a quick sideways movement in order to evade somebody or something

Apologies as your primary language is probably Croatian, but it was bothering me for some reason.

I hate when people do this as well. There is a guy at my shop that says this all the time and it is like nails on a chalkboard.

What?

Jinx and Jinks sound identical when pronounced correctly...

Saying "I'm going to Jinx (or Jinks)" instead of "I'm going to Jink"?

Of course Jink and Jinks sound different... one is the plural form of the other

 DeathReaper wrote:

Of course Jink and Jinks sound different... one is the plural form of the other

/shrug I'm just as confused by his statement as you.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zimko wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

RJCarrot wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Jinx (n): cause of misfortune: an unseen force, a person, or something such as a curse that is thought to bring bad luck

Jinks (v): dodge: to make a quick sideways movement in order to evade somebody or something

Apologies as your primary language is probably Croatian, but it was bothering me for some reason.

I hate when people do this as well. There is a guy at my shop that says this all the time and it is like nails on a chalkboard.

What?

Jinx and Jinks sound identical when pronounced correctly...

Saying "I'm going to Jinx (or Jinks)" instead of "I'm going to Jink"?

Of course Jink and Jinks sound different... one is the plural form of the other

In this case it's a verb, not a noun, so it can't be the plural. You're looking for Third Person Present tense.

Also jinx has a sweet music video and jinks is eldar shenanigans

that's nothing, we've got someone in our club who has "Rendering" guns... *slap slap slap...* NO!

Funny note, you can still Jink even when immobilized! Shenanigans.

 Leonus wrote:
Funny note, you can still Jink even when immobilized! slowed.

Well since Jink has nothing to do with the vehicle moving, why is it funny?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Leonus wrote:
Funny note, you can still Jink even when immobilized! slowed.

Well since Jink has nothing to do with the vehicle moving, why is it funny?

I'm having the weirdest feeling of déjà vu.

It's funny to some of us who like to imagine the narrative of a game as it goes on. To some people like myself, it's more fun than saying "the tactical squad shoots its missile launcher at the wave serpent, but it passed its Jink save." It's hard to justify the narrative of a scenario where a vehicle that cannot otherwise move is able to suddenly jolt to the side.

I mean, immobilisation makes it easier to hit in combat, but the minute you try to shoot it, it's twisting around all over the place?

I get that it's what the rules say; it doesn't stop the situation from being internally inconsistent. That's what is "funny".

 Cheexsta wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Leonus wrote:
Funny note, you can still Jink even when immobilized! slowed.

Well since Jink has nothing to do with the vehicle moving, why is it funny?

I'm having the weirdest feeling of déjà vu.

It's funny to some of us who like to imagine the narrative of a game as it goes on. To some people like myself, it's more fun than saying "the tactical squad shoots its missile launcher at the wave serpent, but it passed its Jink save." It's hard to justify the narrative of a scenario where a vehicle that cannot otherwise move is able to suddenly jolt to the side.

I mean, immobilisation makes it easier to hit in combat, but the minute you try to shoot it, it's twisting around all over the place?

I get that it's what the rules say; it doesn't stop the situation from being internally inconsistent. That's what is "funny".

It is the same suspension of disbelief that lets us think that a Landspeeder moving at top speed an then continuing flat out is somehow just as easy to hit as a stationary Landraider or Imperial Knight, both of which are significantly larger and not moving.

The rules are written in an abstract manner so that the game does not take Twelve days to complete.

As such there will be some compromises to make the game playable. They are just rules for a game, not reality.

If you need to inject some sort of narrative into it think of it as the skimmer, immobilized because the Anti-Grav system is experiencing issues from an Assault Cannon volley earlier but is still hovering in place for now, and suddenly the anti-grav goes off line completely and the skimmer suddenly collides with the ground just as that lascannon shot was about to hit the skimmer.

Or the reverse could be true. The crew, working diligently to get the Anti-Grav online, succeeds in making a temporary connection that thrusts the vehicle high into the air just as a Battlecannon shell explodes on the location where the skimmer was, not moments before. A temporary victory indeed since the shock wave from the Battlecannon explosion, which would have amounted to nothing more than a shutter on a fully functional skimmer, knocked out the very system the crew was so diligently trying to repair and the crew slams into the ground with a thud. They set to task once again trying to repair the Anti-Grav systems to hopefully make their vehicle once again operational.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Leonus wrote:
Funny note, you can still Jink even when immobilized! slowed.

Well since Jink has nothing to do with the vehicle moving, why is it funny?

I'm having the weirdest feeling of déjà vu.

It's funny to some of us who like to imagine the narrative of a game as it goes on. To some people like myself, it's more fun than saying "the tactical squad shoots its missile launcher at the wave serpent, but it passed its Jink save." It's hard to justify the narrative of a scenario where a vehicle that cannot otherwise move is able to suddenly jolt to the side.

I mean, immobilisation makes it easier to hit in combat, but the minute you try to shoot it, it's twisting around all over the place?

I get that it's what the rules say; it doesn't stop the situation from being internally inconsistent. That's what is "funny".

It is the same suspension of disbelief that lets us think that a Landspeeder moving at top speed an then continuing flat out is somehow just as easy to hit as a stationary Landraider or Imperial Knight, both of which are significantly larger and not moving.

The rules are written in an abstract manner so that the game does not take Twelve days to complete.

As such there will be some compromises to make the game playable. They are just rules for a game, not reality.

Oh, absolutely true. My only disagreement here is that it's not a stretch to add a short sentence at the end: "A unit that is unable to move may not Jink."

If you need to inject some sort of narrative into it think of it as the skimmer, immobilized because the Anti-Grav system is experiencing issues from an Assault Cannon volley earlier but is still hovering in place for now, and suddenly the anti-grav goes off line completely and the skimmer suddenly collides with the ground just as that lascannon shot was about to hit the skimmer.

Or the reverse could be true. The crew, working diligently to get the Anti-Grav online, succeeds in making a temporary connection that thrusts the vehicle high into the air just as a Battlecannon shell explodes on the location where the skimmer was, not moments before. A temporary victory indeed since the shock wave from the Battlecannon explosion, which would have amounted to nothing more than a shutter on a fully functional skimmer, knocked out the very system the crew was so diligently trying to repair and the crew slams into the ground with a thud. They set to task once again trying to repair the Anti-Grav systems to hopefully make their vehicle once again operational.

The second is actually almost exactly what I had in mind, but thanks for the idea on the first!