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.

This is kind of a continuation of a previous thread.

In the VP table, it notes that vehicles that are IMMOBILE at the end of the game give up half VP's, it does not say Immobilised (IE: the result on the damage table Immobilised)

So does the vehicle that is stunned give up 1/2 vps?

How about a vehicle that just decided not to move it's last turn? Technically it was 'immobile' too.

Seriously though, only a vehicle that's been immoblized is 'immobile'. A vehicle that was stunned was, well... stunned.

While I agree with you, Ghaz, the VP table states "condition at the end of the game".  If the vehicle was stunned on it's last turn, then it's condition would be "immobile" at the end of the game, as it can't move.  I would never claim VP's if I stunned my opponent's tank on turn 6, and I would laugh in his face if he tried to do it to me, but the rules seem to say different.

Well, at the end of the game, NOTHING can move... because the game is over. So, EVERY vehicle gives up half its points.

That's the kind of logic that's being applied with this concept. And what do we all know about applying logic to GW rules? It's a big no-no.

Posted by ThisIsBatCountry on 06/18/2006 1:45 AM
If the vehicle was stunned on it's last turn, then it's condition would be "immobile" at the end of the game, as it can't move.

No. It's condition at the end of the game is 'Crew Stunned'. Just because the vehicle would not be able to move the next round means that it is immobile.

It depends if you consider that GW have loosely used Immobile in the game sense of having been Immobilised, or in the dictionary sense that vehicles are not moving. Any vehicle that the owner chose not to move on his last turn would be immobile in the dictionary sense.

Where in the description of 'Crew Stunned' do they use the term 'immobile'? I rest my case.

The word 'immobile' means 'incapable of being moved.' Crew stunned says 'unable to move,' which is synonymous with immobile. The problem here is that they did not say 'immobilized' in the victory points section, which is a silly, dumb, inconsistent methodology, and needs to be updated. Drop pods as it is automatically give up half vps - dumb! The idea that someone could consider a stunned vehicle to give up VPs makes it obvious GW did not do their rules homework.

However, the place where this argument breaks down is that 'crew stunned' says 'is unable to move or shoot next turn.' Since at the end of the game there is no next turn, it is not prohibited from moving.

You might ask: if your turn was the end of the game, e.g. you went last, and your vehicle was stunned during that period of time, were you immobile? No, again the 'turn' mechanism makes it fall apart. You were immobile during the last turn, but the end of the game is after the last turn is over. Therefore you are no longer immobile.

Like someone said, you could technically get into this annoying argument saying /all/ vehicles are immobile at the end of the game, if you use any dictionary definition of immobile. Either 'incapable of moving' or 'not moving, motionless.' Technically vehicles are only allowed to move during the movement phase; since at the end of the game there is never another movement phase, you are incapable of moving and motionless.

This argument is supremely lame. Why could they not errata it to say 'immobilized?' That is all. Thanks.

Yarr.

Posted by Longshot on 06/18/2006 11:18 AM
The word 'immobile' means 'incapable of being moved.' Crew stunned says 'unable to move,' which is synonymous with immobile.

No, they're not synonymous. A vehicle that has received a 'Crew Stunned' result is indeed capable of moving the turn after next. Not being able to move for a turn and being immobile are not the same thing.

Are you saying that when you are stunned you are not unable to move (re: Immobile) during that turn? Because that's what I'm hearig you say.

Being UNABLE TO MOVE is exactly the same as being IMMOBILE. The only (only) difference between suffering an 'immobilized' result and suffering a 'crew stunned' result is the duration of your immobilization. You are rendered unable to move by both conditions.

Posted By Longshot on 06/18/2006 10:59 AM
Are you saying that when you are stunned you are not unable to move (re: Immobile) during that turn? Because that's what I'm hearig you say.

Being UNABLE TO MOVE is exactly the same as being IMMOBILE. The only (only) difference between suffering an 'immobilized' result and suffering a 'crew stunned' result is the duration of your immobilization. You are rendered unable to move by both conditions.

A stunned vehicle cannot move on its "next movemement phase" and the end of the game is not during its "next movement phase" so it is not "immobile" it just has a restriction on it's next turn. You are trying too hard to equate stunned with being unable to move again later.

Posted By Longshot on 06/18/2006 10:59 AM
Are you saying that when you are stunned you are not unable to move (re: Immobile) during that turn? Because that's what I'm hearig you say.

Being UNABLE TO MOVE is exactly the same as being IMMOBILE. The only (only) difference between suffering an 'immobilized' result and suffering a 'crew stunned' result is the duration of your immobilization. You are rendered unable to move by both conditions.

And you're trying to say that just because a vehicle can't move it's next turn, that it's incapable of moving.  That is wrong.  The vehicle is very capable of moving after the 'Crew Stunned' results wear off the next turn.

Posted By lord_sutekh on 06/18/2006 12:54 AM
Well, at the end of the game, NOTHING can move... because the game is over. So, EVERY vehicle gives up half its points.

That's the kind of logic that's being applied with this concept. And what do we all know about applying logic to GW rules? It's a big no-no.

LOL, I think that is definately the way to go, 'all vehicles give up at least half points'

Oh ya, as for the definition of 'immobile' I am surprised no one has bothered getting a quote yet:

im·mo·bile
adj.

1. Immovable; fixed.
2. Not moving; motionless.

So technically, unless you have your models moving at the exact end of the game (notes: 'condition at the end of the game') it is immobile.

PS: Yes I do think this is dumb too.

Yes it is dumb, but it's accurate. I actually got my definitions of immobile from the dictionary.

It's totally possible for something to be immobile for a duration rather than immobile period. Being unable to move for a certain amount of time is certain immobile.

What they need to do is make it clear what things are 'conditions' - the simple act of replacing 'immobile' with 'immobilized' would fix the entire debate. Problem is they used an inconsistent word and it punishes us as players. Immobilized is a condition imposed by shooting damage - immobile is the nature of a vehicle that starts the game with the inability to move.

If you want to start arguing 'conditions', then you have some unintended consequences. That is, 'immobile' is not a condition you can acquire by shooting. You can only become immobile by starting the game that way. Conditions from shooting are 'immobilized' 'destroyed' 'crew stunned' 'crew shaken.' Immobile is not a status that can ever result from being shot.

You can't have it both ways. Either they're using a dictionary word to describe the status of something (immobile) and then all things that fit that definition are included (stunned vehicles, anything that is not moving at the end of the game - re: anything). If you claim that what they are describing is a condition then that condition is all that it iincludes - e.g. all vehicles with the 'immobile' descriptor.

The immobilized damage result does not impart the 'immobile' condition. Here is the text for you:

"It may not move for the rest of the game."

Crew stunned is:
"The vehicle may not move ... next turn."

Neither of these circumstances imparts any condition known as 'immobile.' They impart the inability to move.

In fact as far as I can tell, 'immobile' is not a condition described anywhere in the entire book. The only place it is mentioned is in the description of drop pods. If someone can find the 'immobile' condition described somewhere in the rulebook definitely let me know

So with all of that said, here's how the rule seems to break down to me in the most restrictive sense:
p1: Immobile is not a rule described anywhere in the main rule book
c1: Immobile must therefore be assumed to be a dictionary word used in a descriptive sense.

p2-1: The word immobile means 'unable to move' without any qualifications as to duration.
p2-2: When a vehicle may not move, it is unable to move and therefore immobile.
p2-3: No vehicle may move at the end of the game.
c2-1: Therefore all vehicles are 'unable to move' at the end of the game, AND
c2-2: Therefore all vehicles give up half victory points at the end of the game.

If counter to my first conclusion, one assumes that the term 'immobile' refers to the description described only in the Space Marine book, then:
p1: Immobile is a descriptive attribute of vehicles and only that.
p2: No vehicle other than a drop pod is immobile (might be one or two more I am missing but none in core codexes that I am aware of)
p3: A vehicle that is immobilized or stunned 'may not move' but does not have the 'immobile' condition applied to it.
c1: No vehicle is ever worth half victory points at the end of the game unless it begins the game 'immobile.'

Real world apps:
Now in real-world terms those conclusions are both ridiculous. But either one is supported by the rules - far moreso than any other conclusion I have seen. Neither of the actual conclusions people reach are valid for all of the above reasons.

The way we play it locally is that a vehicle only gives up vps if it is 'immobilised,' at the end of the game. The reason we do that is that immobilised is the 'condition' and it's described throughout the book unlike immobile which is described nowhere in the book. Vehicles that fail dangerous terrain checks are immobilised for instance, not rendered immobile.

As to drop pods, we play them kind of like artillery units - if you blow the storm bolter off you get half vps, if you blow it up you get full. But it doesn't automatically give up its vps. That's not the most logical way to do it, but it seems fair given all the other stupid side-effects of actually reading the vehicle victory points rules.

Btw, Ghaz. I'm through attacking you personally despite how much I really really want to lay into you. But if you could do us the courtesy of trying to stick to the rules in debates like this and analysing them instead of giving us your opinion I'd appreciate it.

This forum is for serious rules analysis not for stuff like this:
"just because a vehicle can't move it's next turn, that it's incapable of moving. That is wrong"

I don't think I need to dissect that for you to get why it's so ridiculous. But ask me and I will be happy to.

GW in "unclear" rules shock!

I think 99% of players play it that vehicles which have been immobilised by damage lose VPs while vehicles which have been stunned don't.

Drop pods create a new case but by mentioning them we are in danger of being sucked into a time/space paradox vortex so let's leave them alone for tonight.

I am sticking to the rules, thank you very much. A vehicle that has suffered a 'Crew Stunned' result on the Vehicle Damage chart simply can not move the next turn. It is not 'immobile'. GW never uses the term 'immobilized' for anything other than the 'Immobilized' result on the Vehicle Damage chart. So far you've failed to prove that not being able to move equals 'immobile' from a rules standpoint.

Actually I think Gaz is right. Remember that you look to see if the vehicle is 'immobile' at the end of the game, which would be after the turn has finsihed. And naturally once the turn has finished the effected of being stunned wear off meaning the vehicle in question is now 'mobile' again (ie, able to move). Of course if it is shot at and stunned in the last player turn then it still wouldn't count because the stunned result wouldn't apply until the start of the other player's turn which doesn't happen because the game ended.
A vehicle that is 'immoblised' will still be immobile at the end of the game and thus gives up VPs. This is the difference.

Drop pods as it is automatically give up half vps - dumb!

Actually most the fluff about drop pods indicates that they aren't normally considered reusable, using them up is a (fairly minor) drain on the chapter's resources, like having its marines killed is as well. I'm not about to rationalise IG baslisk platforms though...

You're not welcome buddy since you're still failing to quote or give any references.

Hymirl, you can agree with him all you want. He's still wrongity wrong wrong wrong. And is also not reading my argument.

I never once said that stunned things give up vps. That's a non issue because stunned is a condition that lasts a single turn, and there are no turns at the end of the game. The muddled issue is much more slowed than the whole stunned thing. It's that by reading the rules, either all vehicles give up vps all the time or none do ever (except drop pods).

If you read the rules you'll see that 'immobilised' vehicles are not immobile. They 'may not move.' Yes that means the same thing as immobile, but the problem falls in where you start saying 'anything that may not move is immobile' because if you say that you fall down a slippery slope.

The only reason I even mentioned stunned is that it uses the same text as immobilised - 'may not move.'

GW never uses the word immobile to describe immobilized vehicles in the entire book. Give me some page numbers if you disagree with me here, or don't bother.

They use the words 'may not move' for both stunned and immobilized vehicles.

The only place I have found with the word 'immobile' is in the VP section, in the main rule book. And no, immobilized is not listened there.

im·mo·bi·lize    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-mb-lz)
tr.v. im·mo·bi·lized, im·mo·bi·liz·ing, im·mo·bi·liz·es

1. To render immobile.

Something that is immobilized is thereafter immobile. The only thing in the game that immobilizes is the result "Immobilized" on the damage chart, so therefore:

A unit that has had a roll of immobilized on the damage chart (barring track guards) is immobile at the end of the game. Stunned uses "may not move, not the word immobilized, and is only really hindered for a turn anyway.
There is no rules confusion, only a vehicle with immobile in the description or having had a successfull immobilized result counts as half  VPs. Stop your blathering.

im·mo·bi·lize Audio pronunciation of "immobilized" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mb-lz)
tr.v. im·mo·bi·lized, im·mo·bi·liz·ing, im·mo·bi·liz·es

1. To render immobile.

Something that is immobilized is thereafter immobile. The only thing in the game that immobilizes is the result "Immobilized" on the damage chart, so therefore:

That's great, but it's still only half of the argument. Something that has been immobilised is indeed immobile. But so is something that simply isn't moving.

To put it another way: Being Immobilised makes you Immobile, but being Immobile doesn't necessarily mean you were Immobilised.

The VP chart uses 'Immobile' rather than 'Immobilised'... which means that any vehicle that is not moving gives away VPs. So yes, a Drop Pod automatically gives away VPs at the end of the game. But so does a Basilisk that hasn't moved.

Poste by Longshot on 06/18/2006 7:34 PM
You're not welcome buddy since you're still failing to quote or give any references.

And look whose talking about still failing to quote or give any references. So far you have provided NOTHING that says when the rules say 'the vehicle may not move or shoot the next turn' that it has the same implications as being immobile.

What insaniak said...

Again, this is dumb.

When I first saw this thread, I thought it was going to be an abstract argument/make fun of GW for ridiculously bad writing.  Now it's turned into a personal vendetta.  Can't you see you're making granny Dakka cry?

Posted By insaniak on 06/18/2006 7:28 PM

im·mo·bi·lize Audio pronunciation of "immobilized" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mb-lz)
tr.v. im·mo·bi·lized, im·mo·bi·liz·ing, im·mo·bi·liz·es

1. To render immobile.

Something that is immobilized is thereafter immobile. The only thing in the game that immobilizes is the result "Immobilized" on the damage chart, so therefore:

That's great, but it's still only half of the argument. Something that has been immobilised is indeed immobile. But so is something that simply isn't moving.

To put it another way: Being Immobilised makes you Immobile, but being Immobile doesn't necessarily mean you were Immobilised.

The VP chart uses 'Immobile' rather than 'Immobilised'... which means that any vehicle that is not moving gives away VPs. So yes, a Drop Pod automatically gives away VPs at the end of the game. But so does a Basilisk that hasn't moved.

im·mo·bile    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-mbl, -bl, -bl)
adj.

1. Immovable; fixed.
2. Not moving; motionless

Both of these definitions describe a permanent condition of not being able to move, not just being at rest. Temporary stunning is not the same thing as not having the capacity to move.
A car at a stoplight is stopped. A car on blocks is immobile.

Snoogums, going by the first definition you are right, but the second does not imply a permanent condition.

IE: A car that is parked is immobile. Someone in a coma is immoble. Neither would be generally defined as 'stopped'

Anyway, IMO the REAL answer to this is that any model that you do not have your hands moving at the end of the game is immobile. Therefor this is still dumb

d

IMO you are trying to continue controversy by coming up with the most abstract explination of a definition of a word to try to keep controversy going. Here's the short and skinny:

There is a result of immobilized on the damage chart for vehicles. Immobilizing something makes it immobile. This immobility is stated in the rulebook to not allow any more movement for the rest of the game. This is the only status of immobile that is defined in the rulebook. Therefore the first definition is the only one that applies since it is the only one used in the rulebook.

So definition 1, the inability to move at all, is the only one that matters. You can stop posting now.

If you want to apply real-world definitions to the game, then all models (thats right, every single freaking one of them) are immobile all of the time. When was the last time you saw a 40k model move without outside influence.

All 40k models are inanimate objects and are therefore immobile. End of story.


Now, if you want to stick with game definitions instead, the only way to acheive an "immobile" state is to roll an immobilized result on the vehicle dammage tables, to be declared "immobile" through that model's specific rules (droppod), or to suffer the effects of dangerous terrain. Note, these of course are not the only ways to become "immobile", however they ARE the only ways currently defined within 40k which actually create an abstract "immobile" effect at this point.