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.

I always read the fluff on grav technology as simply "opposing gravitational pull", so you need extra "bits" to actually go up down left right. Kiiiinda like a boat on water, or one would even say a submarine.

How would you Jink in a straight line when you move? Repeat without engines but body weight instead

Unless the skimmer technology also removed inertia, the skimmers should keep drifting forward once the engines are killed.

At any rate, removing jink from immobilized skimmers made my list of house rules.

-Matt

 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.

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.

Thats no excuse for being a jerk when someone gives an opinion.

 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).

The idea of an immobilized vehicle taking a jink save IS stupid. I don't see how you cannot see that.

Sure the rule is what it is... but think about how dumb that really is. A Skimmer gets immobilized and thus cannot move, nor pivot. But somehow, it is still able to take evasive manoeuvres to avoid incoming fire? What about that is logical, fluffy or makes any sense at all?

You can't explain that idiocy, not even with fluff. Perhaps they'll FAQ it?

But you know what is really stupid? You guys say Jinking while Immobilized is perfectly fine, but try and say that a grav gun ignores cover on vehicles and suddenly the whole world is ending.

THAT is stupid.

Think about how dumb pretty much everything in the game really is...

Lasguns, Imperial titans, Space ships, Drop Pods, Dreadnoughts, Tyranids, Eldar, Psychic powers, genetically engineered space marines riding oversized wolves having the same movement rate as a guy on a motorcycle...

And Jink itself IS stupid, how can anything dodge a bullet flying that is flying way faster than anyone can see. The whole rule is "silly" since even mobile vehicles should not be able to dodge bullets...

So we suspend disbelief when talking about skimmers with anti-Grav tech and just follow the rules and play the game.

You know what's stupid? That damn "Get out of Jail!" card in Monopoly. How unrealistic is that??? You can get out of jail by using a CARD? What the hell?! When I play, you must not use the card. It's so illogical, wtf Hasbro!

Black Talos when did I argue the "fluff" aspect of Jinking. I simply stated my opinion.

This thread is full of people who seem to think I am arguing with the rules or arguing fluff. Neither is true. I simply made one statement about how I think some is "ridiculous" and it has expanded into something that has nothing to do with the original question.

I neither wanted or asked for fluff reasons for Jinking. I don't need long speeches from Reaper or Black Talos regarding why something is not ridiculous. It is unimportant and does not pertain to the subject at hand. The question was answered quickly but now has urned into a debate of personal opinion and people justifying those opinions with fluff or conjecture.

Here's a suggestion, allow people to have their opinion and dont insistently try to get the last word in and win the Dakka Award for Debate when no such debate is needed to occur. As I stated before, someone can believe a rule is ridiculous or doesnt make much sense and yet still agree the rule works the way it does. A simple statement like the above doesnt need to be defended by people who have no business defending something that needs no defending.

I certainly dont post as much as others, so maybe I am way off. Maybe Dakka doesnt support simple opinion statements. Or maybe certain trolls on Dakka dont. Not sure... Either way, thank you for adding so much to this simple question. It has really been a nice comic relief to my day.

SCP Yeeman wrote:
Or maybe certain trolls on Dakka dont.

This, pretty much.

For future reference: there's a yellow triangle in each post. If you click on it, you can give a short reasoning for the report (e.g. "Question answered, thread goes OT") and a moderator will get alerted, have a look in it and act if he sees it being appropriate.