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 played a game last night where Trephination was attempted on a vehicle. Now Trephination doesn't specifically exclude vehicles in its description or does it force a vehicle to make a leadership test, it simply uses the "units' leadership value as a modifier to a dice roll. If that unit doesn't have a leadership value, wouldn't the modifier just be 0 or would you just not be able to target a unit without a leadership value?

Your question aside, what would be the result of inflicting Wounds on a vehicle?

Aren't wounds on a vehicle the same as hull points?

No. They're two totally separate things.

in practice, Hull Points are basically wounds for vehicles. But for the purpose of a rule like this, they are not the same. I'm unsure of the exact power you're talking about, but if it says that the unit just loses wounds, it has no effect on a vehicle even if that vehicle would fail the leadership test.

Also, if I remember, there use to be a rule that said Vehicles would be Leadership 10 if they were for some reason demanded to take a leadership test. The rationale given was that because the crew was in an armored box, they're much less likely to waver than people outside wearing normal armor. However this rule is so old I think it predated Psychic Pilot, so it probably doesn't exist anymore.

My rational is that Trephination just says "target unit" not "non-vehicle unit". So you can technically target a vehicle with it.

Also, there is precedence for vehicles to be assumed to have a characteristic value when they natively do not. In assault they are assumed to have a WS of 1. But this is specifically stated.

In my game we opted to not use it on vehicles as it would be very over powered. But i do think this is a oversight in the rules.

I understand that wounds are not hull-points but i cant find anything that says they aren't, would you have a reference for hullpoints not being wounds?

You got it backwards. You need a rule that says hull points ARE wounds, not the other way around. This is a permissive rule set so you have to be told what is, not what isn't.

Globzog wrote:
I understand that wounds are not hull-points but i cant find anything that says they aren't, would you have a reference for hullpoints not being wounds?

That's not the way rules work. If you can't find something that says Wounds = Hull Points then they are not. As written, no matter how many Wounds you 'inflict' on a Vehicle, nothing will happen as a Vehicle doesn't have any Wounds to lose.

Globzog wrote:


I understand that wounds are not hull-points but i cant find anything that says they aren't, would you have a reference for hullpoints not being wounds?

If hull points = wounds, poison weapons could kill vehicles. There's an example of how they are NOT wounds.

The hullpoint /=wounds makes sense and seems like the RAW would say something (indirectly) to that effect.

My friends opposing rational against this working in my game was simply that vehicles don't have leadership values and can never take leadership tests so targeting it wouldn't be invalid to begin with.

Anywho, Thanks for helping me understand this.

Globzog wrote:
The hullpoint /=wounds makes sense and seems like the RAW would say something (indirectly) to that effect.

It doesn't have to. The rules as written would have to say that suffering a wound is the same as losing a hull point. That is the way a permissive rules set works, as it needs to give you permission to treat a wound as a hull point. Otherwise you would need an exceedingly long list of what is not the same as a wound.

Globzog wrote:
The hullpoint /=wounds makes sense and seems like the RAW would say something (indirectly) to that effect.

My friends opposing rational against this working in my game was simply that vehicles don't have leadership values and can never take leadership tests so targeting it wouldn't be invalid to begin with.

Anywho, Thanks for helping me understand this.

To remove a Hull Point, a Glancing or Penetrating Hit must occur. These Hits can only be applied by Armour Penetration Rolls which use a different system than the To-Wound process does. There are also some rules which also just remove a Hull Point like Gravitation and Dangerous Terrain, these are mentioned in addition to any Wounding scenario.

Globzog wrote:
I understand that wounds are not hull-points but i cant find anything that says they aren't, would you have a reference for hullpoints not being wounds?

This is an innately flawed logic when approaching 40k rules.

At no point does the game even correlates the two together. It's like saying "I can use my Leadership to make my Strength test, nothing said Leadership isn't the same as Strength". It doesn't need to. It's a different term laid out in the rulebook, so unless there's something that explicitly say they are related, they are not.

For those not in the know, Trephination is basically Psychic Shriek but is a focused witch fire and you deal 2d6+2 minus leadership instead of 3d6 minus ld.

Charistoph wrote:

Globzog wrote:
The hullpoint /=wounds makes sense and seems like the RAW would say something (indirectly) to that effect.

My friends opposing rational against this working in my game was simply that vehicles don't have leadership values and can never take leadership tests so targeting it wouldn't be invalid to begin with.

Anywho, Thanks for helping me understand this.

To remove a Hull Point, a Glancing or Penetrating Hit must occur. These Hits can only be applied by Armour Penetration Rolls which use a different system than the To-Wound process does. There are also some rules which also just remove a Hull Point like Gravitation and Dangerous Terrain, these are mentioned in addition to any Wounding scenario.

Failed dangerous terrain tests, and grav both remove hull points without causing either glaning nor penetrating hits.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Globzog wrote:
The hullpoint /=wounds makes sense and seems like the RAW would say something (indirectly) to that effect.

My friends opposing rational against this working in my game was simply that vehicles don't have leadership values and can never take leadership tests so targeting it wouldn't be invalid to begin with.

Anywho, Thanks for helping me understand this.

To remove a Hull Point, a Glancing or Penetrating Hit must occur. These Hits can only be applied by Armour Penetration Rolls which use a different system than the To-Wound process does. There are also some rules which also just remove a Hull Point like Gravitation and Dangerous Terrain, these are mentioned in addition to any Wounding scenario.

Failed dangerous terrain tests, and grav both remove hull points without causing either glaning nor penetrating hits.

Indeed.