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.

 kingbobbito wrote:

Freezerassasin wrote:
A unit that has Jinked gets the 4+ cover save. A unit that has Jinked must fire Snap Shots.

False. A model with the jink rule, in a unit that has jinked, gets the 4+ cover save. Otherwise a bike in a group of infantry could jink, and the whole unit would get a cover save. The cover save only applies to units that have the jink USR.

When a skimmer becomes immobilized, does it have the jink special rule? No. The second it loses that hull point, it's stuck where it's at and it loses the jink USR.

Now go back to the rule. The 4+ cover save applies to models with the jink USR. Does the skimmer have the jink USR when it is immobilized? No.

Any shots on the skimmer later this turn don't suffer from the 4+ cover save. The same would apply for shooting next turn, it's no longer jinking, no longer snap fires.

Actually your example is wrong. As the rule states, unit with ANY models that have the Jink USR. All of those models gain the save. I will work out with the rest of my play group how we are going to play it out, but please make sure your examples are right before you start throwing accusations around. All I'll say is I want an FAQ of the FAQ

Freezerassasin wrote:
Actually your example is wrong. As the rule states, unit with ANY models that have the Jink USR. All of those models gain the save. I will work out with the rest of my play group how we are going to play it out, but please make sure your examples are right before you start throwing accusations around. All I'll say is I want an FAQ of the FAQ

Read the entirety of the Jink rule.

"If the unit Jinks, all models in the unit with this special rule gain..."

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Freezerassasin wrote:
Actually your example is wrong. As the rule states, unit with ANY models that have the Jink USR. All of those models gain the save. I will work out with the rest of my play group how we are going to play it out, but please make sure your examples are right before you start throwing accusations around. All I'll say is I want an FAQ of the FAQ

Read the entirety of the Jink rule.

"If the unit Jinks, all models in the unit with this special rule gain..."

I can see where Freezer is coming from, it doesn't clearly say that losing the jink special rule makes you lose the benefit you gained when you invoked the special rule. To me, a valid interpretation would be that "models with this special rule gain <abilities>" when the jink is invoked and the only end clauses are "until the start of their next movement phase".

So under that interpretation, you require the special rule to GAIN <abilities>, but once you have gained them you have them "until the next movement phase".

There's no rule saying that you retain <abilities> after losing the special rule, but it's also not explicitly stated that abilities gained by invoking the special rule are lost if the special rule is lost.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Freezerassasin wrote:
Actually your example is wrong. As the rule states, unit with ANY models that have the Jink USR. All of those models gain the save. I will work out with the rest of my play group how we are going to play it out, but please make sure your examples are right before you start throwing accusations around. All I'll say is I want an FAQ of the FAQ

Read the entirety of the Jink rule.

"If the unit Jinks, all models in the unit with this special rule gain..."

I can see where Freezer is coming from, it doesn't clearly say that losing the jink special rule makes you lose the benefit you gained when you invoked the special rule. To me, a valid interpretation would be that "models with this special rule gain <abilities>" when the jink is invoked and the only end clauses are "until the start of their next movement phase".

So under that interpretation, you require the special rule to GAIN <abilities>, but once you have gained them you have them "until the next movement phase".

There's no rule saying that you retain <abilities> after losing the special rule, but it's also not explicitly stated that abilities gained by invoking the special rule are lost if the special rule is lost.

Yes, I think this is very clear from the rule that if you Jink before you got immobilized, you still keep your 4+ save and the snap shot penalty until their end condition is met, which is until next movement phase and end of next turn, respectively.

This is how it would work:

Rules Summary:
* If any model in your unit has [Jink], when your unit is targeted by a shooting attack, you may declare it to Jink, before any to hit rolls are made.
* If you declare to Jink, the models with [Jink] in the unit get [4+ cover] until next movement phase and [snapshot only] until the end of your next turn
* If you get immobilised, you lose [Jink]

Step by step:

* To start off, Model A has [Jink], it belongs to unit X

Step 1. Unit X is targeted by a shooting attack. Unit X jinks. Model A gets [4+ cover] and [snapshot only].

* Model A now has [Jink] [4+ cover] [snapshot only]

Step 2. Model A gets immobilised by the attack. Model A loses [Jink]

* Model A now has [4+ cover] [snapshot only]

Step 3. Unit X is shot at by another target. Model A can still roll cover 4+.

* Model A still has [4+ cover] [snapshot only]

Step 4. Your turn. You loose [4+ cover] when your movement phase starts. Model A fire snapshots in the shooting phase.

* Model A has [snapshot only]

Step 5. End of your turn. Model loses [snapshot only].

* Model A has nothing

Yeah, I'm not saying that's definitely how it should be played, but I think it's a valid interpretation, especially when you consider that a model moving erratically from jinking doesn't just suddenly freeze in space when it gets immobilised. It's perfectly logical that whatever movements the crew initiated in order to avoid the enemies fire continue on and affect other units shooting at it and also affect the crews ability to shoot in their turn.

If the sentence didn't say "gain" then it you wouldn't be as open to interpretation. If it said "models with special rule have <abilities>" then the implication would be that those abilities only last while the special rule is in effect, but when it says "models with special rule gain <abilities>", it opens up the field for a wider interpretation where it could mean that the invoking of the special rule gives you those abilities and the losing of the special rule only affects whether you can invoke the special rule later, but doesn't affect the <abilities> themselves until they naturally wear off.

I am going to say something that will make everyone who likes arguing about the wording of rules very upset. ready?

use common sense

If a vehicle jinked and still gets immobilized it still fires snap shots the following turn because IT DID JINK! If you disagree with this because it lost that special rule then think about WHY jink would cause you to fire snap shots. The idea behind this is that you are swinging wildly back and forth to evade enemy fire so you don't have time to aim accurately. So thats jink. Now lets see what happens when your immobilized, you flying and your jinking hooray you dodged some shots. and BLAM! you get knocked out of the sky, Boom you land in a heap of twisted metal and crushed hopes and dreams. You don't think that the act of falling out of the sky and slamming into the ground would cause your aim to falter a bit? Yes I know, the rules DONT specifically say you HAVE to fire snapshots but at the same time unless a rule states that because of the immobilization you no longer have to fire snapshots you should probably just follow the rule.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I am going to say something that will make everyone who likes arguing about the wording of rules very upset. ready?

use common sense

If a vehicle jinked and still gets immobilized it still fires snap shots the following turn because IT DID JINK! If you disagree with this because it lost that special rule then think about WHY jink would cause you to fire snap shots. The idea behind this is that you are swinging wildly back and forth to evade enemy fire so you don't have time to aim accurately. So thats jink. Now lets see what happens when your immobilized, you flying and your jinking hooray you dodged some shots. and BLAM! you get knocked out of the sky, Boom you land in a heap of twisted metal and crushed hopes and dreams. You don't think that the act of falling out of the sky and slamming into the ground would cause your aim to falter a bit? Yes I know, the rules DONT specifically say you HAVE to fire snapshots but at the same time unless a rule states that because of the immobilization you no longer have to fire snapshots you should probably just follow the rule.

+1, but also, you should get to keep your cover save until your turn starts even if you lose Jink, so if the enemy have more guys to shoot at you with, you should still get the save from that Jink...

Rules wise, because the cover save is treated the same way as the snap shots in the rule

Fluff wise, because a jinking bike/skimmer etc is still difficult to hit even if someone did get a hit that caused the vehicle to stop working. It doesn't just freeze instantly when that happens. Next turn however it will be cannon fodder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

My opinion is that the lose of the Jink USR does not effect the current turn.

So where are you getting permission to keep treating the model as having a rule that it just lost?

You're partially correct, in that the effect of Jinking lasts for the specified time. The problem is that the effect of Jinking is something that specifically applies to models with the Jink rule. So any time Jink applies that effect to the unit, it only affects those models with the rule.

The permission is right here:
"When a unit with any models with the Jink special rule is selected as a target for a shooting attack, you may declare that it will Jink. The decision must be made before any To Hit rolls have been made. If the unit Jinks, all models in the unit with this special rule gain a 4+ cover save until the start of their next movement phase, but they can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn."

When a unit with any models with Rule A is selected for a shooting attack, you may apply rule A.
When you apply rule A, all models with rule A in that unit gets benefit B and penalty P.
Benefit B lasts until owners next movement phase.
Penalty P lasts until owners next turn is over.

Nowhere here does it say that if Rule A is removed after it is triggered, it would take Benefit B and Penalty P with it in the fall. It actually says specifically when they are removed, and removing the rule is not stated as one of the triggers for this.

It seems that you are hanging up on the part that says "all models in the unit with this special rule"....
This line only clears out what happens if you have a mixed unit where some models have jink and some don't, at the time when the rule is triggered.

When do you "check" if a model has the Jink rule? When it gets targeted by a shooting attack, at which point the owner of the model can declare to Jink getting a 4+ cover save bonus until the end of the shooting phase and a "only fires snap shots" penalty during its next shooting phase. You never go back to "check" if the model has the Jink rule until it is targeted again in the shooting phase of THE NEXT turn at which point if the model is immobilized it no longer has the jink rule.

If you jink, you fire snap shots in your next shooting phase, immobilized or not.

Other interpretations are simply playing games with language and attempting to paint a picture of GW writing "shoddy" rules. The rules are fine, it is a "shoddy" interpretation.

Some people seem to want to read the rule so they can get an advantage of jink while avoiding the penalty for jinking. I am pretty sure this is NOT the intention of the FAQ on the Jink rule. In addition I will say to play it this way would be pretty poor sportsmanship on the part of the player jinking.

Loborocket wrote:
If you jink, you fire snap shots in your next shooting phase, immobilized or not.

Except that is not what the rules actually say.

"When a unit with any models with the Jink special rule is selected as a target for a shooting attack, you may declare that it will Jink. The decision must be made before any To Hit rolls have been made. If the unit Jinks, all models in the unit with this special rule gain a 4+ cover save until the start of their next movement phase, but they can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn."


"...all models in the unit with this special rule..." This special rule meaning the Jink special rule.

If the model does not have the Jink special rule, then it does not get a cover save and does not fire snap shots.

Your sir are playing semantics, if you gain a benefit from an ability you dont get to take away the negatives just because you suffered a setback. Again its a battle of RAW and RAI we all know what the RAI would be but people will debate the RAW to no end. if its a friendly game roll dice to decide, otherwise if you REALLY feel like you shouldn't have to snap fire you can try and get away with it, just don't be shocked when your opponent calls you out on it.

He's not playing semantics. How are you being affected by a rule you no longer have?

Because he used the rule and the rule states he has to snap fire the next turn when he used that ability, So he used jink, that means he has the negative modifier immediately and it will take effect next shooting phase. he gets immobilized thats unfortunately but he should still suffer the negative consequences of using his ability, even if he lost that ability AFTER he used it.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Because he used the rule and the rule states he has to snap fire the next turn when he used that ability, So he used jink, that means he has the negative modifier immediately and it will take effect next shooting phase. he gets immobilized thats unfortunately but he should still suffer the negative consequences of using his ability, even if he lost that ability AFTER he used it.

That's not quite what it says though.

It says...

"...all models in the unit with this special rule...can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn." This special rule meaning the Jink special rule.

So models with the Jink rule can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn.

No Jink rule, no snap shots or cover save.

and that is your interpretation of the rules, as I said, we can play semantics and argue over the wording of a rule but there will not be a definitive answer until its FAQ'd and honestly you either agree before the game with your opponent or run the risk of being called a cheater during the game

 Ghazkuul wrote:
and that is your interpretation of the rules, as I said, we can play semantics and argue over the wording of a rule but there will not be a definitive answer until its FAQ'd and honestly you either agree before the game with your opponent or run the risk of being called a cheater during the game

Your the one who's playing semantics, saying he still has to abide by a rule that he no longer has.

 Ghaz wrote:
He's not playing semantics. How are you being affected by a rule you no longer have?

When the action (jinking) was taken the model had the rule, the bonuses AND penalties went into affect for the duration specified in the Jink rule. I don't see anything that changes the duration of the bonuses and penalties from the jink rule. The only thing is, an immobilized model no longer has "jink", so in the NEXT shooting phase it can't take the jink action because it no longer has the rule.

The real question is if the jink rule "disappears" the instant the model is immobilized. I say no, mainly because you don't perform a "check" for the jink rule UNTIL the unit is shot at. If a model that has jinked is targeted by a second unit do you have to declare jink again? No it is assumed you are jinking for the remainder of the shooting phase. Jink starts and is "on" until the end of the phase and the snap shot penalty is "on" until the next shooting phase. There is no language in the jink rule or the FAQ saying otherwise.

The rule is clear to me. I really doubt the question would ever come up in games I play. If it did, I would probably let my opponent play it however they liked without much fuss. It is really not worth it in the long run. If NOT firing a snap shot is that important to you, awesome knock yourself out, fire at full BS. Actually I would probably just let you assign a free wound to one of my guys if it is really that important to you.

Life is too short to play rules lawyer. There are TONS of lawyer jokes out there and this issue is a prime example of why. An issue that is really fairly straight forward is spun and spun until all involved don't know which way is up and agree just to make the lawyers stop talking.

It doesn't matter if it had the rule when the action was taken. When it no longer has the rule, it no longer has the rule. The FAQ says that an immobilized skimmer no longer has the 'Jink' special rule. You're trying to keep the 'Jink' rule in play after the skimmer has been immobilized and no longer has that rule. Please provide something to support you claims that the skimmer keeps the 'Jink' rule after being immobilized despite the FAQ saying otherwise.

 Ghaz wrote:
You're trying to keep the 'Jink' rule in play after the skimmer has been immobilized and no longer has that rule. Please provide something to support you claims that the skimmer keeps the 'Jink' rule after being immobilized despite the FAQ saying otherwise.

Doesn't exist. You are right. Which model from my army do you want to kill? I will take it off the table for you.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I am going to say something that will make everyone who likes arguing about the wording of rules very upset. ready?

use common sense

OK.

If you disagree with this because it lost that special rule then think about WHY jink would cause you to fire snap shots. The idea behind this is that you are swinging wildly back and forth to evade enemy fire so you don't have time to aim accurately.

Yup. And once you've been immobilised, you're no longer 'swinging wildly back and forth to evade enemy fire' and so no longer subject to the effects of said wild swinging.

That's just common sense.



The problem with arguments to 'common sense' is that the rules aren't a real world simulation. 'Common sense' tells me that when the guy with the melta gun dies, the guy beside him should be able to pick it up. Common sense tells me that the guy at the front of the unit isn't going to be able to catch all of the incoming fire from an enemy unit on a shield worn on his forearm. Common sense tells me that my psyker shouldn't forget his own abilities from one battle to the next.

And for all that, there's someone out there who would tell you that all of those things make perfect sense... because what constitutes a 'common sense' approach to the game varies from person to person, depending on their own interpretations and how they view the game.

I say we fix this by taking jink off all the wave serpents so the elder band wagoneers can stop arguing with everyone else.








"Troll!!! Troll in the dungeon!"

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Because he used the rule and the rule states he has to snap fire the next turn when he used that ability, So he used jink, that means he has the negative modifier immediately and it will take effect next shooting phase. he gets immobilized thats unfortunately but he should still suffer the negative consequences of using his ability, even if he lost that ability AFTER he used it.

That's not quite what it says though.

It says...

"...all models in the unit with this special rule...can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn." This special rule meaning the Jink special rule.

So models with the Jink rule can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn.

No Jink rule, no snap shots or cover save.

You are conveniently ignoring a few key words in your quote.

" all models in the unit with this special rule gain a 4+ cover save until the start of their next movement phase, but they can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn."

What is the definition of gain? The first definition of gain in the Oxford (and there are multiple, I'm not going to copy them all).

1. Obtain or secure (something wanted or desirable)

Think of it like this, a ticket will gain you entry to an amusement park, but if you lose the ticket you still are in the the amusement park, but you lose the ability to re-enter it. Or another example might be the sentence "The squad will gain an advantage by advancing quickly". That doesn't mean they have to keep advancing quickly to maintain their advantage, it means by advancing quickly they have gained an advantage which they now hold.

Using the word gain in the exact same way, it would be implied that by having the special rule you GAIN a 4+ cover save and snapshots, you then keep them even if you lose Jink because the only end clause is "start of next movement/end of next turn". When you use the word GAIN for specific abilities, to be unambiguous you have to then specifically define the end terms of those abilities, and the only end terms we've been given are "start of next movement/end of next turn".

I'm not saying it's the ONLY interpretation, but it's definitely a valid one. We can argue semantics but the problem is words have multiple definitions, and so there are multiple valid interpretations.

If the rule had of been written...

all models in the unit with this special rule have a 4+ cover save until the start of their next movement phase, but they can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn."

...then the implication of obtaining or securing would no longer be there, "have" implies that "special rule" has to exist for <benefits> to remain. But using the word "gain" can just as equally imply that you have secured those <benefits> through the use of the "special rule" until they naturally end.

EDIT: Edited for clarity.

And you are conveniently ignoring a few key words...

" all models in the unit with this special rule gain a 4+ cover save until the start of their next movement phase, but they can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn."

If they do not have the special rule they do not gain anything...

Well of course. We are talking about the situation where you aren't immobilised, you jink, then you get immobilised, do you keep the benefits of jink.

Obviously you need to have the special rule in order to gain the cover save and snap shots in the first place... but once you have gained them the question is whether or not you lose them if you become immobilised.

The rules don't specify whether or not you keep them, so either interpretation is valid.