| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
 |
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/12/20 02:58:00
Subject: Pens on immobilized skimmers?
|
 |
Plastictrees
|
"Any hits that beat the Armor Value of a mobile skimmer moving more than 6" in its last movement phase count as glancing instead of penetrating hits." (69, emphasis added) An immobilized skimmer is not a "mobile skimmer moving more than 6"..." It is an immobilized skimmer that moved more than 6" last turn. So is it correct that, from the moment that the skimmer is immobilized, it can be penetrated--even by shooting that occurs subsequently in that same shooting phase or an assault that takes place in that turn's assault phase?
|
"The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements.... Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration." Karl von Clausewitz |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/12/20 03:38:08
Subject: RE: Pens on immobilized skimmers?
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
I would agree with that statment. If that phrase was not supposed to have that meaning, the inclusion of the word mobile is unneccesary.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/12/20 03:39:18
Subject: RE: Pens on immobilized skimmers?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
Zürich
|
If you look a bit further down you'll see that I have already asked this question...
|
-"Subtle is subjective, of course; in a finesseless game like 40K, anything that isn't a brick to the head is downright sneaky..." ->lord_sutekh |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/12/20 03:43:17
Subject: RE: Pens on immobilized skimmers?
|
 |
Plastictrees
|
Ooops, sorry Meph.
|
"The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements.... Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration." Karl von Clausewitz |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/12/20 05:20:24
Subject: RE: Pens on immobilized skimmers?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
My personal view on this is that any shooting that occurs in a later batch or CC attacks occuring at a later initiative step would treat the skimmer as immobile, but not hits from the same unit shooting or initiative step.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/12/20 08:22:56
Subject: RE: Pens on immobilized skimmers?
|
 |
Tunneling Trygon
|
The inclusion of the word "mobile" is noteworthy. It creates the effect Flavius describes, and it's also somewhat awkward in the sentence, suggesting it was included specifically to have that effect.
I think the RAW and intent arguments both suggest that subsequent shooting in the same round can Pen the Skimmer.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/12/20 22:38:48
Subject: RE: Pens on immobilized skimmers?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
Zürich
|
It makes sense anyway, the skimmer has just been shot down and is now on the ground. Any shots happening later are shooting a wreck on the ground and thus can penetrate it.
|
-"Subtle is subjective, of course; in a finesseless game like 40K, anything that isn't a brick to the head is downright sneaky..." ->lord_sutekh |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|