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.

Sliggoth wrote: Its a house rule in any way to hit the vehicle.

it's funny really in my neck of the woods we call these "house rules" ... "common sense"

Monster Rain wrote: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?

No, I do not see where you are going here. As I have said many times, I have never brought up fluff, but you have. Scout moves, deployment, and anything else like this you can think of were never in my argument.

It's mind baffling that you fail to see the logical fallacy in assuming that the vehicle is stationary because it has not moved, even though I have proven the opposite would have to be valid as well.

General_Chaos wrote:

Sliggoth wrote: Its a house rule in any way to hit the vehicle.

it's funny really in my neck of the woods we call these "house rules" ... "common sense"

Indeed. I could make house rule that you must play as Eldar wearing a dress or auto-lose but it wouldn't be correct. Though I think I'll do it anyway.

@general chaos Indeed, we tend to call it common sense too....when the house rule is worked out so that it makes sense and isnt something just arbitrarily plucked out of thin air and held up to be the one and only true possible way it could ever be played


Hitting a vehicle in cc befire that vehicle has had a turn simply isnt covered in the rules.

It isnt even covered in anything resembling RAI, because the way the rule is written its pretty apparent that GW never even considered the possibility.



There are some people who have a lot invested in it being an auto hit. Ork players for along time have had very limited anti armor capability, and something like this that gives them a chance to cripple part of a mech list can be extremely valuable.

Others simply have always played it this way, and since they have always played it that way it must be right.

And some people truly do feel that its the right way to play it.


All of these people have points. But so do other points of view on this one. There really is no RAW answer. There really is no clear RAI answer. There are several contradictory fluff answers.

Most people just go with whatever they first played on this one, since it only comes up rarely for them.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth I agree with you whole heartedly on this. There really is no RaW answer. Even I know there isn't!

On an unrelated note, your Signature is a little outdated since Spearhead Came out

thebetter1 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote: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?

No, I do not see where you are going here. As I have said many times, I have never brought up fluff, but you have. Scout moves, deployment, and anything else like this you can think of were never in my argument.

It's mind baffling that you fail to see the logical fallacy in assuming that the vehicle is stationary because it has not moved, even though I have proven the opposite would have to be valid as well.

Good night, folks. And thanks. You've been great!

Monster Rain wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote: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?

No, I do not see where you are going here. As I have said many times, I have never brought up fluff, but you have. Scout moves, deployment, and anything else like this you can think of were never in my argument.

It's mind baffling that you fail to see the logical fallacy in assuming that the vehicle is stationary because it has not moved, even though I have proven the opposite would have to be valid as well.

Good night, folks. And thanks. You've been great!

Yeeeeah. This.

KingCracker wrote:I would imagine yes its an auto hit. The monolith didnt move previously, so it would fall under the requirements for an auto hit on vehicle.

But Im probably wrong, Ive been off the game a while


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn ninjad by a troll

They see him trollin, they hatin, and he knows they think he's so right and RAW!

Monster Rain wrote: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?

Actually, no, scout moves don't count for being hit in combat - they didn't happen "last turn".

Are you not going to rule those autohit as well? They also haven't moved "since the beginning of the game" so under your interpretation they'll still be getting autohit, yes?

The point is not how far it's moved since the game started, that's not the rule, the point is that it hasn't had a last turn so all the options provided by the rules are invalid. Your scout move example is a good one - this is a vehicle that we know for sure has moved and yet it still hasn't moved "last turn".

After that it's up to players to decide how they want to handle it.

BTW, I would say that there's even more semantics and chicanery involved in saying that "hasn't had a turn yet" = "remained stationary last turn".

Scott-S6 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote: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?

Actually, no, scout moves don't count for being hit in combat - they didn't happen "last turn".

Are you not going to rule those autohit as well? They also haven't moved "since the beginning of the game" so under your interpretation they'll still be getting autohit, yes?

Yeah, I would say that they get autohit. But if stationary vehicles are being counted as having moved into position, surely a vehicle that's actually moved since it's been deployed should get even more protection.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:BTW, I would say that there's even more semantics and chicanery involved in saying that "hasn't had a turn yet" = "remained stationary last turn".

Chicanery? In saying that hasn't moved at all = hasn't moved at all?

thebetter1 wrote:

It's mind baffling that you fail to see the logical fallacy in assuming that the vehicle is stationary because it has not moved, even though I have proven the opposite would have to be valid as well.

This sentence right here utterly invalidates everything you have said.

Also, sigged.

The really baffling part is how some people seem to think that a vehicle on the first turn that has made a scout move should be considered to have been stationary on its previous imaginary turn. And thinking that this is a natural, automatic choice instead of a house rule.



Sliggoth

The really baffling part is how some people seem to think that a vehicle on the first turn that has made a scout move should be considered to have been stationary on its previous imaginary turn. And thinking that this is a natural, automatic choice instead of a house rule.

I'd play a vehicle that has made a scout moves counts as having moved however far it moved for the purposes of being assaulted. But then I'd also count it for the purpose of cover saves for fast scout skimmers.

Centurian99 wrote:Except in planetstrike, how are you getting a first turn assault?

On spearhead deployment (table quarters), the nearest point for each deployment zone is only about 17" apart. If both opponent's crowd the near edge of the deployment zone, like two CC oriented opponents, it should be very easy to get a first turn assault on both near corners of the deployment zones.

Saldiven wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:Except in planetstrike, how are you getting a first turn assault?

On spearhead deployment (table quarters), the nearest point for each deployment zone is only about 17" apart. If both opponent's crowd the near edge of the deployment zone, like two CC oriented opponents, it should be very easy to get a first turn assault on both near corners of the deployment zones.

Or, as it has been pointed out in this thread:

Shrike with a unit of assault marines or vanguard vets (my fav, a few with Thunder Hammers). They infiltrate 18" away from the enemy and then they're guaranteed a first-turn assault, since they're fleet as well.

puma713 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:Except in planetstrike, how are you getting a first turn assault?

On spearhead deployment (table quarters), the nearest point for each deployment zone is only about 17" apart. If both opponent's crowd the near edge of the deployment zone, like two CC oriented opponents, it should be very easy to get a first turn assault on both near corners of the deployment zones.

Or, as it has been pointed out in this thread:

Shrike with a unit of assault marines or vanguard vets (my fav, a few with Thunder Hammers). They infiltrate 18" away from the enemy and then they're guaranteed a first-turn assault, since they're fleet as well.

You missed the point of my post.

With Spearhead deployment, you don't need any kind of special mix of rules and such to get a first turn assault. With the minimum distance between the two deployment zones at the nearest corners being less than 17", any unit capable of an 18" total assault distance can gain a first turn assault.

In other words:

Any Beast unit type
Any Cavalry unit type
Any Jump Infantry unit type
Any unit mounted in a Land Raider
Any Bike or Jetbike unit type (even without the ability to scout)
Any unit with Fleet
etc.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

It's mind baffling that you fail to see the logical fallacy in assuming that the vehicle is stationary because it has not moved, even though I have proven the opposite would have to be valid as well.

This sentence right here utterly invalidates everything you have said.

Also, sigged.

No, it does not. Does anyone at all have any evidence that what I said was incorrect, or is everyone just going to agree that it is wrong for no reason?

thebetter1 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

It's mind baffling that you fail to see the logical fallacy in assuming that the vehicle is stationary because it has not moved, even though I have proven the opposite would have to be valid as well.

This sentence right here utterly invalidates everything you have said.

Also, sigged.

No, it does not. Does anyone at all have any evidence that what I said was incorrect, or is everyone just going to agree that it is wrong for no reason?

Bold says it does. Bit superfluous to argue that it didn't invalidate itself.

Slarg232 wrote:
Bold says it does. Bit superfluous to argue that it didn't invalidate itself.

This statement only supports that I must have been right, as yet another person cannot say why.

thebetter1 wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:
Bold says it does. Bit superfluous to argue that it didn't invalidate itself.

This statement only supports that I must have been right, as yet another person cannot say why.

Do you really beleive that falls under the purview of being right?

Slarg232 wrote:
Do you really beleive that falls under the purview of being right?

It is a pretty good indication that you are right when people again and again, including you, cannot explain why you are wrong.

Criteria for the auto-hit have been mostly met, since the vehicle has not moved, although there was no previous turn. So since it is mostly satisfied, and the 4+ and 6+ are not satisfied at all, I would call it an auto-hit, for me or my opponent. Not being beardy, the vehicle just hasn't moved...

Nantukoshade wrote:Criteria for the auto-hit have been mostly met, since the vehicle has not moved, although there was no previous turn. So since it is mostly satisfied, and the 4+ and 6+ are not satisfied at all, I would call it an auto-hit, for me or my opponent. Not being beardy, the vehicle just hasn't moved...

It's like people haven't read the thread at all...

The logic being used is that we know the vehicle has not moved, therefore it has remained stationary.

I switched around that logic, saying that because we know the vehicle has not remained stationary, it has moved.

I then pointed out the first statement as a logical fallacy, because if it were correct, the second would have to be correct at all. All of you who are saying that I was wrong to label the first sentence as a fallacy should take a class in logic.

FlingitNow wrote:Not I wasn't, I was asked to not assume anyone who said the rules meant the rules. The rules are what GW designed not what an inannimate object designed.

I have no idea why you keep coming back to the idea that people think the rulebook wrote the rules.


The rules that GW designed are the Rules as Intended.
The rules as written in the rulebook are the rules of the game of Warhammer 40000.


Whether or not the rulebook conveys the rules as intended perfectly, containing the rules of the game is what a rulebook, by very definition, does. So the rules as written, however imperfectly written they may be, are 'the rules'... by simple virtue of being written in the rulebook.

So, once again, please stop insisting that your personal interpretation of the rules as intended is the rules of the game. You are welcome to suggest the way you feel the rules are supposed to be interpreted. But you deciding that a given interpretation is the clear or obvious one doesn't make that interpretation 'the rules'...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sliggoth wrote:The really baffling part is how some people seem to think that a vehicle on the first turn that has made a scout move should be considered to have been stationary on its previous imaginary turn.

I think a part of it (at least for those seeking to justify the reasons behind a rule, rather than those who think the rule as written in a given situation is sufficient justification in itself) comes down to how people see the Scout move, and what it reflects.

Some see the Scout move as an actual move. So the vehicle effectively gets a movement phase before the game begins. Using that interpretation, it's easier to assume that the vehicle should be treated as having had a previous movement phase, and so should count as moving in the first turn of the game.

Some see the Scout move as not actually representing a movement, specifically... but simply as representing the fact that the vehicle has been placed in a forward position prior to the battle. The movement granted by the rule is simply the mechanic used to convey that placement at a given distance from the rest of the army. So coupled with the fact that other vehicles have no opportunity to count as having previously moved, despite the fact that they obviously moved at some point in the past in order to get to the battlefield in the first place, the assumption is that the vehicle is not considered to have previously moved in the first turn of the game.

I actually did read the thread. I was just adding my oppinion. Sorry that it contradicts yours and it makes you mad, but I have not tissues to issue you. In reality, during the first turn of the game, the vehicle has literally not moved from its original placement on the board. That is what I was basing my statement and opinion on. I would definately love to play the game with all of these assumptions of what happened before the armies met, and what not. If I did that, all of my models would actually represent captures chaos marines that i placed on the planet to lure other xenos in and execute exterminatus on the planet, and therefore would never lose a game. But all in all, it is an opinion needed to be resolved by the players or a TO.

Nantukoshade wrote:But all in all, it is an opinion needed to be resolved by the players or a TO.

This has been my opinion from the beginning. Any decision is equally arbitrary; my 4+ position is simply a compromise.

thebetter1 wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:
Do you really beleive that falls under the purview of being right?

It is a pretty good indication that you are right when people again and again, including you, cannot explain why you are wrong.

Because we've already explained our positions, and our conclusions are different from each others' we should explain our positions again? Do you enjoy circular arguments that much?

thebetter1 wrote:

Nantukoshade wrote:Criteria for the auto-hit have been mostly met, since the vehicle has not moved, although there was no previous turn. So since it is mostly satisfied, and the 4+ and 6+ are not satisfied at all, I would call it an auto-hit, for me or my opponent. Not being beardy, the vehicle just hasn't moved...

It's like people haven't read the thread at all...

The logic being used is that we know the vehicle has not moved, therefore it has remained stationary.

I switched around that logic, saying that because we know the vehicle has not remained stationary, it has moved.

I then pointed out the first statement as a logical fallacy, because if it were correct, the second would have to be correct at all. All of you who are saying that I was wrong to label the first sentence as a fallacy should take a class in logic.

Except our point-of-view actually has bearing. The vehicle has not physically moved. It has been in the same position the entire game. There's no way to twist that. It hasn't moved. That's all we need for our side of the argument to validate itself. You ask, why do you see it this way? That is why. The vehicle hasn't moved. No matter what kind of fluff you give it, no matter what sort of twisting you try to do - the vehicle was stationary since the game began. Has the little model rhino moved since where you put it at deployment? No? Is it fair to say that it hasn't moved, then? I would think so.

The second is not correct because you're making an assumption that you have no backing for. You're saying "we know the vehicle has not remained stationary". But we don't know that. In our case, we -know- the vehicle has remained stationary. Why? Because it hasn't moved. The game just began. Physically, all semantics aside, the model hasn't been moved.

For your assumption to work, you have to know that the vehicle has not remained stationary and there is nothing that backs that up. There is nothing to suggest that it has not remained stationary, whereas there is evidence that it has not moved (the lack of it actually being moved).

You're making a jump that you're not entitled to make simply by moving words around. Moving words around doesn't make it the same argument. Since you're talking about logic class, then you must know about an "Argument From Ignorance": when something cannot be proven false, it automatically makes it true. You're saying that since we can't prove that it didn't move in the last turn, it must have moved. Whereas we actually have proof that something did not move. Why? Because it actually did not physically move (and we weren't told that it moved, as in the case of a drop pod.) There were no measurements. There was no movement. That is the proof that we're basing our argument off of.

You say "we know the vehicle has remained stationary". The vehicle hasn't had a turn, it's had no opportunity to move yet - it's speed is unknown. This is irrelevant regardless as it's speed in turn one is not asked by the vehicle CC rules.

What speed the vehicle moved at in it's previous turn is utterly unknowable. Stationary, combat and cruising are all equally valid and justifiable.

If you choose to play it as autohit that's up to you but I'd suggest making the decision based on game balance rather than on a mangling of the rules

Scott-S6 wrote:You say "we know the vehicle has remained stationary". The vehicle hasn't had a turn, it's had no opportunity to move yet - it's speed is unknown.

Actually, it's speed is zero. It hasn't moved.