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.

So the other night, my Wave Serpent got immobilized. I looked up Jink, and the Immobilized vehicles result. Neither my friend or I could find where it says you cannot jink if you are immobilized. If someone could reference a page that says immobilized vehicles cannot jink I would appreciate it. It seems pretty ridiculous, but I probably overlooked it.

Appreciate it.

You dont need to move to Jink in 7th. As far as i'm aware an immobilized vehicle can still jink

SCP Yeeman wrote:
So the other night, my Wave Serpent got immobilized. I looked up Jink, and the Immobilized vehicles result. Neither my friend or I could find where it says you cannot jink if you are immobilized. If someone could reference a page that says immobilized vehicles cannot jink I would appreciate it. It seems pretty ridiculous, but I probably overlooked it.

Appreciate it.

You will find no such page disallowing using the Jink USR while a vehicle is immobilized.

Immobilized can use the Jink rule to gain a cover save.

Why does it seem "pretty ridiculous"? The rules are clear on the subject.

Pretty ridiculous that you can Jink. I'm not debating it isn't clear, as I said on my post I could find nothing in the book to say otherwise, this it being clear. Thinking about a vehicle jinking that cannot move is the ridiculous part.

SCP Yeeman wrote:
Pretty ridiculous that you can Jink. I'm not debating it isn't clear, as I said on my post I could find nothing in the book to say otherwise, this it being clear. Thinking about a vehicle jinking that cannot move is the ridiculous part.

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Never said they did. It was a personal opinion is all. But appreciate the speech.

I just do not get why people think that it is "Pretty ridiculous that you can Jink." Using the Jink rule is perfectly legal even if a vehicle is immobilized. (The vehicle does not have to move to utilize the Jink rule).

Just asked if it was legal and then gave a personal opinion. But I guess personal opinions mean I have a problem with the rules... something I never stated. I agree that it is perfectly legal as I never found anything otherwise in the BRB and something I never disputed.

Just so you know, someone can think of something as ridiculous while agreeing it is perfectly legal to do so.

Mods can lock the thread. appreciate the help.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I just do not get why people think that it is "Pretty ridiculous that you can Jink." Using the Jink rule is perfectly legal even if a vehicle is immobilized. (The vehicle does not have to move to utilize the Jink rule).

No one is saying it isn't legal, we're saying it's silly.

Immobilized results specify that the vehicle can't even turn on the spot, it's utterly unable to move. Save weapon swivel and turrets turning, the vehicle cannot move at all, skimmers are even (ideally) supposed to have their flying stands taken out to represent them being forced onto the ground. Alternatively they're supposed to be suspended in the air, unable to turn at all but simply floating there; maybe drifting on the wind slightly at best.

It's just silly. This vehicle cannot turn to shoot enemies beside or behind it, but it can still (somehow) jink to avoid incoming fire. So far as realism goes no one argues that 40k is supposed to be realistic, but it does make some attempts to be. Plenty of changes to the rules have been in the name of realism: Focus fire, wounds not leaking around corners, taking casualties from the front, max kill ranges on weapons, ect ect.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I just do not get why people think that it is "Pretty ridiculous that you can Jink." Using the Jink rule is perfectly legal even if a vehicle is immobilized. (The vehicle does not have to move to utilize the Jink rule).

No one is saying it isn't legal, we're saying it's silly.

This is silly, but Genetically engineered human monstrosities that can bench press 50 kilos, and space bugs that devour all biomass, and Psykers are not silly? Really?

Immobilized results specify that the vehicle can't even turn on the spot, it's utterly unable to move. Save weapon swivel and turrets turning, the vehicle cannot move at all, skimmers are even (ideally) supposed to have their flying stands taken out to represent them being forced onto the ground. Alternatively they're supposed to be suspended in the air, unable to turn at all but simply floating there; maybe drifting on the wind slightly at best.

It's just silly. This vehicle cannot turn to shoot enemies beside or behind it, but it can still (somehow) jink to avoid incoming fire. So far as realism goes no one argues that 40k is supposed to be realistic, but it does make some attempts to be. Plenty of changes to the rules have been in the name of realism: Focus fire, wounds not leaking around corners, taking casualties from the front, max kill ranges on weapons, ect ect.

The game has to be abstract to be playable within a short timeframe.

Sure the fluff mentions dodging and weaving, but this is not rules.

Jink is just a rule that allows a vehicle to take a cover save, just like terrain grants a Swooping FMC a cover save, that is as "silly" as the immobilized vehicle using the Jink rule, but no one bats an eye at that..

Damn Morgan I was going to just tell you not worry about explaining a personal opinion because a speech would ensue, but I got ninja'd by the speech!

Next time ill PM or you something, sorry I forgot man.

SCP Yeeman wrote:
Damn Morgan I was going to just tell you not worry about explaining a personal opinion because a speech would ensue, but I got ninja'd by the speech!

Next time ill PM or you something, sorry I forgot man.

I get the "personal opinion" deal, but Jink is a rule and not an action taken by the vehicle. If jink were an action (Or reaction) taken by the vehicle then I would see how it would be weird.

I find it odd that Summoning daemons with Psychic beings, is fine, but an immobilized vehicle using the Jink rule is "silly"

They are both silly as far as realism goes because they are abstract rules for a Sci-Fi game.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I just do not get why people think that it is "Pretty ridiculous that you can Jink." Using the Jink rule is perfectly legal even if a vehicle is immobilized. (The vehicle does not have to move to utilize the Jink rule).

Because for years they had to move to actually get the bonus, now they even get it when immobilized.
It's not strange that people think this is weird.

Imagine that suddenly the rule of gravity changed, I bet it would take you some time to adapt

 DeathReaper wrote:
I get the "personal opinion" deal, but Jink is a rule and not an action taken by the vehicle. If jink were an action (Or reaction) taken by the vehicle then I would see how it would be weird.

"To jink" means to make a quick evasive turn.
So I'd say it is an action taken by the vehicle.
Someone fires at it and you evade the fire by quickly moving it.

Seems counter intuitive when you can "dodge" an attack when you are immobile.

Maybe the immobilized Jink is just holding so still the enemy can't see you. Like avoiding a T-Rex.

On a serious note, I agree that the rules don't forbid the use of Jink while immobilized, but it doesn't make logical sense to me that something stationary is dodging either... Maybe they should have changed the name of the ability this edition since it doesn't work the same way.

For those arguing with deathReaper about whether it is ridiculous or not, just remember that he deals only with rules. As far as the rules go he is correct, it is very clear that jinks are allowed even if immobilized.

With that said, rules aside, obviously it is ridiculous that a vehicle that can not move, can then somehow evade enemy fire. However that's the way it is.
Not everything in 40k makes total sense. Imperial knights stomping on Wraithknights for instance.

I fully agree and I personally am quite the rulesfreak, I can remember and understand the rules even if they make no sense at all.
But I see how an ability that is basically called "evade" that works when immobilized will make people ask questions

Can you tell me what you think jinking is? I do not agree with "it just happens, it is not movement".

It is not the only thing that isn't spelled out in the rules, I wish common sense was used more often. I would not allow a vehicle to jink once is gets immobilized.

"..the pilot can throw his craft into a series of evadive manoeuvres"

Naw wrote:
Can you tell me what you think jinking is? I do not agree with "it just happens, it is not movement".

It is not the only thing that isn't spelled out in the rules, I wish common sense was used more often. I would not allow a vehicle to jink once is gets immobilized.

"..the pilot can throw his craft into a series of evadive manoeuvres"

In the English language it's an evasive manoeuvre, thus movement.
In WH40K-rules it's an ability that gives you a 4+ cover in exchange for your BS next shooting.

The problem with the old Jink was that the player going second couldn't take his saves because his army was stationary. Fluffwise that's lame because the army got their.. how exactly?
The "problem" with the new Jink is that you can claim its cover even though you are immobilized.
I know it feels weird this way, but it's for the best.

Even though I'm a Necron-player, I hope that they will make some rule that takes away Jink from Immobilized vehicles, just like Grounded FMC's lose their Jink.

Naw wrote:
Can you tell me what you think jinking is? I do not agree with "it just happens, it is not movement".

It is not the only thing that isn't spelled out in the rules, I wish common sense was used more often. I would not allow a vehicle to jink once is gets immobilized.

"..the pilot can throw his craft into a series of evadive manoeuvres"

Uh-oh. You didn't just do this in a YMDC thread did you? Prepare for some rule lawyering lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

just like Grounded FMC's lose their Jink.

Just to nitpick, but FMCs always have jink now too. I don't believe there is anything that says they must be flying for it to take effect.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
For those arguing with deathReaper about whether it is ridiculous or not, just remember that he deals only with rules. As far as the rules go he is correct, it is very clear that jinks are allowed even if immobilized.

And that is the problem with this forum. A solution is not tried to be found.

I wonder how he handles a farseer within a group of guardians. Does he allow against the rules powers to be manifested?

With that said, rules aside, obviously it is ridiculous that a vehicle that can not move, can then somehow evade enemy fire. However that's the way it is.
Not everything in 40k makes total sense. Imperial knights stomping on Wraithknights for instance.

True, but as has been said, in previous edition movement was required, now it should be self-explanatory.

Naw wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
For those arguing with deathReaper about whether it is ridiculous or not, just remember that he deals only with rules. As far as the rules go he is correct, it is very clear that jinks are allowed even if immobilized.

And that is the problem with this forum. A solution is not tried to be found.

I wonder how he handles a farseer within a group of guardians. Does he allow against the rules powers to be manifested?

With that said, rules aside, obviously it is ridiculous that a vehicle that can not move, can then somehow evade enemy fire. However that's the way it is.
Not everything in 40k makes total sense. Imperial knights stomping on Wraithknights for instance.

True, but as has been said, in previous edition movement was required, now it should be self-explanatory.

With the state of the game as it currently is, it is really up to players to add or change rules as they seem fit. Most major tournaments are now doing it, and if high level play is anything to go by, and if doing so will help you and your group have more fun, then do so.

However, many people on this forum stick to the rules as written in their entirety. This is not a vice however, it is just a different way to play the game, by the rules in their strictest sense.

If I am genuinely confused about a rule, I will ask it here. If my group wants to houserule things to make the game flow more easily or due to common sense, then we simply discuss it and then do so.

Asking people in YMDC to use common sense is just a good way to get frustrated with humanity.


With regards to the Jink rule in the last edition: I disliked it. It made bikes on the move a pain to get rid of, however at the same time made many lists very vulnerable to alpha strikes if they went second.
I personally like the new rules, and will tolerate a slight piece of illogical gameplay in favour of rules which make the game more balanced.

I think General-topic is more a place to find solutions and discuss the 'weirdness' because you're more likely to encounter users there who are looking for a solution.

YMDC is for rules lawyers (nothing wrong with that) and here is the place where you can come to if you want to know how it should be played according to the RAW.
Then you and your group can decide for yourself if you want another solution or not.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Just to nitpick, but FMCs always have jink now too. I don't believe there is anything that says they must be flying for it to take effect.

No, but a Grounded Test does make them lose Jink for the entire turn.

The good thing is, jink is not compulsory. So if you believe that immobilized vehicles cannot jink, you can just elect not to. And your opponent may show some grace by doing the same. If not, you can always find another opponent.

As a necron player, although it is disadvantageous, I would not jink my immobilized vehicle. It's not breaking a rule still.

Kangodo wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Just to nitpick, but FMCs always have jink now too. I don't believe there is anything that says they must be flying for it to take effect.

No, but a Grounded Test does make them lose Jink for the entire turn.

You are right. Just checked the rules. I had in my head that it would be pointless to have this rule now, as grounding tests are done at the end of a phase, however I was not thinking about how it would interact with interceptor or the new psychic phase.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
For those arguing with deathReaper about whether it is ridiculous or not, just remember that he deals only with rules. As far as the rules go he is correct, it is very clear that jinks are allowed even if immobilized.

Fair enough, but why (after presenting the correct rules) continue to argue about someone's personal views on the rationality of the matter?

If I'm commenting solely on the gameplay aspect of a question, I ignore parts of comments that deal with thoughts and feelings about the rules. Someone can find something silly, ridiculous, or nonsensical to their hearts content, but if I claim to be concerned with the RAW and ruleset, it's not my place to comment on or discuss those sentiments whatsoever (especially not to muddy the waters) and, quite frankly, it's none of my business. For someone with almost 13,000 posts, you'd think he would have figured this out by now.

DoW

Naw wrote:
Can you tell me what you think jinking is? I do not agree with "it just happens, it is not movement".

It is not the only thing that isn't spelled out in the rules, I wish common sense was used more often. I would not allow a vehicle to jink once is gets immobilized.

As long as you would not let your models jink, that's fine, just don't ask your opponent not to jink when he wants to as he is fully correct about being able to do so.

I don't actually see a problem with this at all.

What vehicles have Jink? Skimmers.
An immobilised Rhino does not Jink, which is what most people here are thinking about.

Fluff-wise, immobilised for a Skimmer is either A) Grounded or B) Hovering immobile.

Jink is an additional cover save. If we are in A), then the Skimmer is probably imbedded quite deep into the ground, providing a much lower profile, and a cover you could easily see as "in a crater".

If we're talking about B), then fluff is even easier: The two marines or other just got out of their seats and shaking their skimmer left and right, dodging shots in the process. Because of this, manning a weapon is nigh impossible, hence Snap shooting.

Lean Right John!


Edit: Trying to resize to smaller.... But not found a way yet... Halp

 BlackTalos wrote:


If we're talking about B), then fluff is even easier: The two marines or other just got out of their seats and shaking their skimmer left and right, dodging shots in the process. Because of this, manning a weapon is nigh impossible, hence Snap shooting.

Lean Right John!

I hate to be that guy...

Thinks like Eldar Wave Serpents, Tau Devilfish, ect ect are designed to carry 10+ troops in full combat gear without having any difference in drag, speed, maneuverability, ect ect. Being conservative and using round numbers that's going to be 2,000 lbs of extra weight if each soldier weighs 175 and has 25 of gear. Generally speaking it would probably be significantly more, but I'm just being generous.

A self contained tank with engines powerful enough to send it screaming across the battlefield and zooming over terrain several stories high, without having its abilities compromised by several thousand additional pounds, is not going to "jink" because the guys inside are running back and forth, leaping against the walls in tandum.

I'd sort of buy the Land Speed one, maybe. MAYBE, because Space Marines are big guys wearing big armor.. Plus speeds are pretty tiny. Even that though, is pretty freaking iffy considering it's a combat vehicle. While the marines might be able to tilt it a bit, they're not going to make it do much "jinking".

Anyway, this conversation has gotten kind of silly. I was simply trying to point out why people had questions about it / how it didn't make sense to a lot of people. Not start an argument and derail the thread. I apologize.

I was not actually derailing the thread, as OP has clearly said RaW is defined but is arguing how "ridiculous" ie fluff-based ideology is to be taken, i was pointing out that even that part can adhere to RaW.

Also to come back to case B) and how most Skimmers you list are capable of great agility, that is when they are operating properly.
The vehicle being immobilised surely points to a problem with the mechanism, if not a complete failure of it.

The Grav engine might be fully operational (since we're still floating) while the control engines (pitch-yaw etc) is completely done for, thus immobilising the vehicle. If that is the case, i'm sure you could rock the Wave Serpent with a single Occupant.

Finally i would say that if OP (SCP Yeeman) would like to continue the debate of the fluff working here, that the thread be moved to 40K General or Background as the RaW (and YMDC) aspect was answered in the third post by DR =)

Why would you be able to rock the vehicle? Is there less gravity to the sides of the vehicle or what?