Vehicle Assault Progression

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Okay,
a friend was disadvantaged in a tourney, because the TO's and he did not share a similar viewpoint on assault progression and he didn't find that out till the day of the event.
I don't see it in the FAQ, and don't wish to refer to a Fan FAQ for clarification. I know how I play it, but want unbiased feedback.

Assault is normally resolved in initiative order, clearly defined on the BRB pg 36, with model removal on pg 39.
Vehicle assault is simplified and truncated(or totally different) on BRB pg 63.
Attacking a vehicle that is immobilized counts as an auto-hit (pg-63).

Now, as the vehicle assault table is separate from the assault infantry rules for hitting, is it handled the same?
It says to launch an assault and conduct per the norm (above the roll needed box, pg 63, two catagories up) It gives you a table (and clarifies that) hitting is solely based on speed of the target (questioning whether WS/Init values have any bearing).
I know this is a lot, but the question boils down to....

If a vehicle hit at initiative 4 (by a krak grenade Tac Marine) is immobilized, does the Pwr Fist (in the same combat and unit) then hit automatically at initiative 1?

[Old_Paladin]

I don't see how this was confussing.
The to-hit table clearly says that its based on the vehicles speed from the previous turn.

So no, that powefist needs the same to hit roll as everyone else, as the attack isn't happening in a different turn (just a slightly different part of the same phase).

[jeffersonian000]

Kind of. A vehicle's previous movement speed does set the roll needed to a hit in an assault, however, the immobilization result would supersede the vehicles previous speed from the point the immobilization occurred.

Ex: Rhino moved at 6” last turn. During opponent’s turn, the Rhino as assaulted and a krak grenade hits with an immobilization scored on the damage chart. Powerfist sergeant goes at initiative 1 (needs a 4+ to hit due to speed/auto-hits due to immobilization) and hits automatically, reducing the Rhino to wreckage.

SJ

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I don't see how this was confussing.
The to-hit table clearly says that its based on the vehicles speed from the previous turn.

So no, that powefist needs the same to hit roll as everyone else, as the attack isn't happening in a different turn (just a slightly different part of the same phase).


I am going to attempt to de-bunk any argument I can here, so don't take this as an attack...it's running this out as far as I can. :)

brb pg 63:
"attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or (emph mine) was stationary in its previous turn" is the crux.
Some take it to mean either/or, some take it to mean a break where you are immobilised at all OR didn't move next turn...Slightly different, and far reaching implications.


Jeffersonian;
and of course the argument there would be... immobilised or did not move in it's previous turn. :)

[Xas]

if by the time you are attacked (read: assoult phase @ initiative step) you are already immobilized the attacker hit automatically.

if you had to be immobilized at the beginning of the turn the rules wouldnt have to talk about immobilized at all (because if you are immobilized at the start of the turn you will surely not move ;) ).

[Ferro]

Locally we play that initiative steps are completely ignored against a vehicle without a weapon skill; therefore all initiative steps are happening at once. In the pursuit of faster play we therefore will usually roll the attacks which are most likely to cause damage first (in this case the powerfist) even though it would normally roll last in a normal combat. If the strongest attack succeeds, you're done and you've saved some time by not rolling loads of superfluous dice.

[Denzark]

If you attacked say a dread or defiler, you still need to penetrate etc. So if you do weapons destroyed and take off a dread CCW you would expect it to do one less attack when it comes around to its initiative. So there is an order here.

Similarly if the krak at ini 4 immobilised the (non walker) vehicle I would expect the ini 1 PF to hit it automatically.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

If you attacked say a dread or defiler, you still need to penetrate etc. So if you do weapons destroyed and take off a dread CCW you would expect it to do one less attack when it comes around to its initiative. So there is an order here.

Similarly if the krak at ini 4 immobilised the (non walker) vehicle I would expect the ini 1 PF to hit it automatically.


excepting that a dread/deflier has both a WS and initiative...doesn't qualify there.
I understand the parallel, but walkers are handled as infantry for CC. (see left column pg 73 BRB)

[TSINI]

Locally we play that initiative steps are completely ignored against a vehicle without a weapon skill; therefore all initiative steps are happening at once. In the pursuit of faster play we therefore will usually roll the attacks which are most likely to cause damage first (in this case the powerfist) even though it would normally roll last in a normal combat. If the strongest attack succeeds, you're done and you've saved some time by not rolling loads of superfluous dice.

yes, I agree here, this is how I would play combat against a vehicle, go for the "most likely to kill the thing" attacks first, then use the others as backup chances. so all the attacks would be assumed to happen at the same time, and so getting an immobilized result halfway through would make no difference to the following attacks, they would all need to roll to hit.

obviously this is different for walkers as they have an I value

[SeattleDV8]

yes, I agree here, this is how I would play combat against a vehicle, go for the "most likely to kill the thing" attacks first, then use the others as backup chances. so all the attacks would be assumed to happen at the same time, and so getting an immobilized result halfway through would make no difference to the following attacks, they would all need to roll to hit.

Not so, the only changes in the basic assault rules are what is needed to hit, AP,Combat results and successive turns.
We still must follow all of the general assault rules,ie IC needs to be BtB to attack, only the units models in BtB or within 2" of a model in BtB can attack etc.
Nothing in the vehicle rules change when you attack, you do it in Int order.
If the vehicle has been Immobilised at Int 4 , it is auto hit at Int 1.
The roll to hit is based on last turn's movement or if the vehicle is immobilised when attacked.

[Jwolf]

Locally we play that initiative steps are completely ignored against a vehicle without a weapon skill; therefore all initiative steps are happening at once. In the pursuit of faster play we therefore will usually roll the attacks which are most likely to cause damage first (in this case the powerfist) even though it would normally roll last in a normal combat. If the strongest attack succeeds, you're done and you've saved some time by not rolling loads of superfluous dice.

Only when we're playing fast; when it matters, the attacks have to go in initiative order.

[Ferro]

...the only changes in the basic assault rules are what is needed to hit, AP,Combat results and successive turns.
We still must follow all of the general assault rules,ie IC needs to be BtB to attack, only the units models in BtB or within 2" of a model in BtB can attack etc.
Agree 100%


Nothing in the vehicle rules change when you attack, you do it in Int order.
If the vehicle has been Immobilised at Int 4 , it is auto hit at Int 1.
The roll to hit is based on last turn's movement or if the vehicle is immobilised when attacked.
Mr. Wolf, can you chime in on this part, please?
And what do you mean by "when it matters the attacks have to go in initiative order"? I.e., when does it matter? ...and, we always play fast! :)

[Culven]

Mr. Wolf, can you chime in on this part, please?
Sorry, I'm not Jwolf, but I hope that I can help.
The stanrdard assault rules explain how Initiative is to be used and what will be needed to hit and wound based upon WS and S/T comparisons. The vehciles in assualt rules only modify the to hit and "to wound" portions of Assault. Nothing changes the use of Initiative steps. Furthermore, the vehicle to hit table makes reference to previous turn movement for what is needed to hit, but there is also a ". . .is immobilized. . ." clause for automatic hits. The important bit there is the present tense of the verb. For that clause to trigger, the vehicle must currently be Immobile, and its previous speed is irrelevant. The Immobile status can be the result of dangerous Terrain in the previous turn, shooting in the previous phase, or a close combat attack at a higher Initiative step.

And what do you mean by "when it matters the attacks have to go in initiative order"? I.e., when does it matter? ...and, we always play fast! :)
It will matter when there are attacks with the potential for affecting the Vehicle at a lower Initiative step (such as a Powerfist which will be attacking after Krak Grenades are used). If the entire unit was going to make all attacks at the same Initiative, then all attacks could be rolled together.

[Jwolf]

Essentially it matter when weapons that can penetrate or have a decent chance of destroying the vehicle go at higher initiative steps, and there are other units nearby. Forthe charger, destroying the vehiclie on glances is always better, but if you don't really have much chance to do that (a tank with 4 weapons and you've got 30 S4 attacks, for instance) then might as well do the fist first.

[sorienor]

And what do you mean by "when it matters the attacks have to go in initiative order"? I.e., when does it matter? ...and, we always play fast! :)

It matters a lot to some armies, like Ork. Having a vehicle blow up is a bad thing, I'd much rather just wreck it with glances.

[Ferro]

Ok that makes more sense. Thank you Culven and Mr. Wolf.

Initiative steps are present in all combats.

[ninja skills]

the vehicles assault rules are a different set of rules to the normal assault ones, initiative is never mentioned in the rules for vehicle combat, so all your unit would attack at once. the only rules not used from p63 specifically state how they effect vehicles (eg the combat weapons page).

the vehcle rules are self contained and not just a variation of the normal ones. the only thing the same is how the models launch the assault, not how its faught (except walkers as it states they fight like infantry)

i agree with the independent characters needing base/hull contact as the rules say they count as a separate unit for assault.

(sorry for the rant but I really got interested in the points raised in this thread and had to grab my brb and check)

[avatar8481]

we've always played that you count the previous turns speed for the whole assault phase.

[Culven]

the vehicles assault rules are a different set of rules to the normal assault ones, initiative is never mentioned in the rules for vehicle combat, so all your unit would attack at once. . . .
Why? As you say, there is no mention of Initiative. Wouldn't it be equally valid to assume that one is to use the normal Initiative rules? especially since there is nothing that states all attacks are made at one time? If one reads the rulebook as setting the general parameters followed by special circumstances, then by the time we get to the vehicle assault rules, we already know that combats are worked out in Initiative order. Without a rule modifying this general assault rule, it would be more logical to default to the previously established rule. In my opinion, it is better to default to an established rule rather than make an assumption as to how it should be played when there is a lack of a rule.


we've always played that you count the previous turns speed for the whole assault phase.
Even if the Vehicle is Immobile but had moved in its previous Movement phase?

[Jwolf]

we've always played that you count the previous turns speed for the whole assault phase.

This is one of the more common mistakes; the rules are actually clear. Immobilized = automatic hit, regardless of speed in the previous turn.

[karandras]

Man, this is an interesting thread. In 15+ years of playing 40k and traveling the country to different tournaments, I have never met anyone try to interpret the vehicle assault rules in this manner. I am of the impression that assaults against vehicles that do not have an initiative and weapons skill follow the vehicle assault rules. Not the standard assault rules with vehicle caveats. Quite the contrary, the way I read it is there is a set of assault rules specifically to use for vehicles without a weapons skill and walkers follow the regular assault rules as they are treated like infantry. The only mention of the initiative step is in the regular assault rules and it is used to determine in what order models strike.

As combats against vehicles without a weapon skill and initiative are one sided (i.e. - the vehicle does not strike back), there is no mention of, or use for, the initiative step!

That seems like common sense to me. I understand the argument of the OP, but it appears he is trying to take advantage of the rules (i.e.- assault a vehicle at the same time as a group, but then roll to hit only for the krak grenade equipped models hoping to achive an immobilized result, so you can skip trying to roll a 4+ for the powerfist toting champion)! C'mon! That is not in the spirit of the game.

[Old_Paladin]

This is one of the more common mistakes; the rules are actually clear. Immobilized = automatic hit, regardless of speed in the previous turn.

Actually the rules are not perfectly clear (because of the crappy english language). RAW, both interpretations seen are correct.
Immobilized last turn or didn't move last turn, is allowed to be shortened to: 'immobilized or didn't move' last turn.
Equally, if immobilized *stop* or didn't move last turn.

This is why punctuation exists; a semi-colon could have solved this.


For example, if I say "I'm going to play warhammer or go shopping tomorrow" Most people here are saying that I might shop tomorrow, or play warhammer... at some point? Or does it mean one or the other, but both within the same time limitations?

[ninja skills]

Man, this is an interesting thread. In 15+ years of playing 40k and traveling the country to different tournaments, I have never met anyone try to interpret the vehicle assault rules in this manner. I am of the impression that assaults against vehicles that do not have an initiative and weapons skill follow the vehicle assault rules. Not the standard assault rules with vehicle caveats. Quite the contrary, the way I read it is there is a set of assault rules specifically to use for vehicles without a weapons skill and walkers follow the regular assault rules as they are treated like infantry. The only mention of the initiative step is in the regular assault rules and it is used to determine in what order models strike.

As combats against vehicles without a weapon skill and initiative are one sided (i.e. - the vehicle does not strike back), there is no mention of, or use for, the initiative step!

That seems like common sense to me. I understand the argument of the OP, but it appears he is trying to take advantage of the rules (i.e.- assault a vehicle at the same time as a group, but then roll to hit only for the krak grenade equipped models hoping to achive an immobilized result, so you can skip trying to roll a 4+ for the powerfist toting champion)! C'mon! That is not in the spirit of the game.

exactly my point. i agree it could be seen otherwise but it tells you in the book step by setp what to do when fighting vehicles as I is never mentioned all hits would be done together so you'd use they speed the vehicle went before the combat started not what happens half way through as there isn't a half way through the round(so to speak)

[SeattleDV8]

exactly my point. i agree it could be seen otherwise but it tells you in the book step by setp what to do when fighting vehicles as I is never mentioned all hits would be done together so you'd use they speed the vehicle went before the combat started not what happens half way through as there isn't a half way through the round(so to speak)

Except it doesn't tell you step by step, it gives you specific rules that are different from normal assaults.
You still have to follow the general rules that are not mentioned in the vehicle section.
Also in a multiple assault ( vehicles and other units) when would you have the attacks go off against the vehicle? Before the normal Int steps or after? You see where that would cause problems.
Without a specific rule changing when attacks go off in an assault you must follow the general rules.

BRB pg.63 " ...vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn."
It is clear that these are two seperate conditions.
If it was one it would have been worded '...was immobilised or stationary....'
Removing the "or was stationary" shows us the wording is odd
"...is immobilised in its previous turn." Even GWs writing isn't that bad.
So when checking what is needed to hit, if the vehicle is currently immobilised that = Auto hit.

[Lord Inquisitor]

I would like to ask a question that sort of pertains to this. If a Dark Eldar Archon's shadow field is disabled by something at initiative 4 does a model at initiative 1 have to get through the shadow field?

[Jwolf]

There is nothing to indicate that we ignore initiative amongst our models with an initiative value when assaulting a model without an initiative value; assertions that this is so are inventions not based in any written materials.

The phrasing is clear in English, as SeattleDV8 demonstrates.

[Jwolf]

I would like to ask a question that sort of pertains to this. If a Dark Eldar Archon's shadow field is disabled by something at initiative 4 does a model at initiative 1 have to get through the shadow field?

They do not.

[karandras]

Alright. I am late to the party, but I re-read my rule book today. What the OP is attempting to do is to pick a phrase out of one distinct section of the rules and apply it to another distinct section of the book in order to gain an advantage. This is rules lawyering and is not in the spirit of the game.

The rules for vehicles are distinct and in their own section. The only reference to the standard assault rules in the rules for assaults vs vehicles is that the ASSAULT MOVE is worked out as normal measuring to the hull and that figuring who is engaged works the same (i.e. - models within 2" etc). That's it! There is no reference to initiative or any other part of the standard assault rules. Period.

The logic that initiative somehow plays a role is broken. Again, you cannot take pieces from one distinct section of the rulebook and apply them to another distinct part of the rulebook. If you could, then vehicles could run. Obviously the rules for run are not in the vehicle rules section for vehicle movement; they're in the regular movement section. However, the old adage "it doesn't say I can't" would take precedence in the OPs manner of rules interpretation. It doesn't say vehicles can't run in the vehicle section and the run rule states a unit that does not shoot may run during the shooting phase. Thus, a vehicle can run because it doesn't specifically say it can't. Rubbish.

Furthermore, in regards to this rule. If I was playing in a tournament and someone attempted to interpret the vehicle assault in this way, it would come to a roll-off (Per the rulebook when players cannot agree). In a roll-off you would have to roll a die anyway. If you won the roll, I would still feel cheated and disgruntled. If you lost the roll, you would feel cheated and disgruntled. Either way, the end result is we possibly mark down each other on sportsmanship, hurting us both in the tournament... and you had to roll off anyway! Why not just roll the 4+ to hit that is needed and skip all the drama.

[Old_Paladin]

BRB pg.63 " ...vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn."
It is clear that these are two seperate conditions.
If it was one it would have been worded '...was immobilised or stationary....'
Removing the "or was stationary" shows us the wording is odd
"...is immobilised in its previous turn." Even GWs writing isn't that bad.

Technically, the wording 'was immobilized last turn' isn't effective because people could try to B.S. and say it wasn't immobilized last turn but several turns ago (and should say was immobile last turn). Is immobilized covers whenever it became immobile, because it still 'is immobilized' from last turn.

[Jwolf]

Alright. I am late to the party, but I re-read my rule book today. What the OP is attempting to do is to pick a phrase out of one distinct section of the rules and apply it to another distinct section of the book in order to gain an advantage. This is rules lawyering and is not in the spirit of the game.

The rules for vehicles are distinct and in their own section. The only reference to the standard assault rules in the rules for assaults vs vehicles is that the ASSAULT MOVE is worked out as normal measuring to the hull and that figuring who is engaged works the same (i.e. - models within 2" etc). That's it! There is no reference to initiative or any other part of the standard assault rules. Period.

The logic that initiative somehow plays a role is broken. Again, you cannot take pieces from one distinct section of the rulebook and apply them to another distinct part of the rulebook. If you could, then vehicles could run. Obviously the rules for run are not in the vehicle rules section for vehicle movement; they're in the regular movement section. However, the old adage "it doesn't say I can't" would take precedence in the OPs manner of rules interpretation. It doesn't say vehicles can't run in the vehicle section and the run rule states a unit that does not shoot may run during the shooting phase. Thus, a vehicle can run because it doesn't specifically say it can't. Rubbish.

Furthermore, in regards to this rule. If I was playing in a tournament and someone attempted to interpret the vehicle assault in this way, it would come to a roll-off (Per the rulebook when players cannot agree). In a roll-off you would have to roll a die anyway. If you won the roll, I would still feel cheated and disgruntled. If you lost the roll, you would feel cheated and disgruntled. Either way, the end result is we possibly mark down each other on sportsmanship, hurting us both in the tournament... and you had to roll off anyway! Why not just roll the 4+ to hit that is needed and skip all the drama.

Utter rubbish. Nothing in Vehicles and Assault tells us to ignore initiative. Suppose you have a combat involving vehicles and infantry - how do you suppose we resolve attacks? There is absolutely no text supporting initiative not being part of the resolution of attacks versus vehicles; in the absence of specific instructions to the contrary, follow the general rule. The Vehicles and Assault section is full of "do it like this" instructions that alter the normal structure; none of those include "initiative doesn't play a part."

Any TO who allows you a roll-off on this is incompetent. You're just plain making up rules without a single shred of support, whereas resolving attacks in initiative order is given in the general Assault Phase rules. Vehicles and Assault is NOT a stand-alone ruleset; it gives the modifications to the Assault Phase for dealing with Vehicles wihout a Weapon Skill - that's all.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Alright. I am late to the party, but I re-read my rule book today. What the OP is attempting to do is to pick a phrase out of one distinct section of the rules and apply it to another distinct section of the book in order to gain an advantage. This is rules lawyering and is not in the spirit of the game.

Actually, I am going to take affront to your tone sir. You are intimating my question was to gain advantage. Following here, after your quote, is my original thread in its entirety. My intent, was to get an unbiased string of ramblings in order to find the most prevalent interpretation on the rules.
I personally do not see it as clear cut, but after my rebuttals I will share my opine, thus lending my TRUE bias to the argument that I was attempting to let run it's course.



The rules for vehicles are distinct and in their own section. The only reference to the standard assault rules in the rules for assaults vs vehicles is that the ASSAULT MOVE is worked out as normal measuring to the hull and that figuring who is engaged works the same (i.e. - models within 2" etc). That's it! There is no reference to initiative or any other part of the standard assault rules. Period.

Actually, this is part of the crux. As we all know GW is not 100% clear on the rules, is Vehicular assault actually WHOLLY it's own mechanic, or is it merely an addendum on the core rules. As we can see, this viewpoint can utterly alter our take on the answer.
Also, it is clearly not so 'obvious' as you state, as there are many people here in this thread that I respect for their involvement in the hobby, that do NOT share your particular viewpoint.



The logic that initiative somehow plays a role is broken. Again, you cannot take pieces from one distinct section of the rulebook and apply them to another distinct part of the rulebook. If you could, then vehicles could run. Obviously the rules for run are not in the vehicle rules section for vehicle movement; they're in the regular movement section. However, the old adage "it doesn't say I can't" would take precedence in the OPs manner of rules interpretation. It doesn't say vehicles can't run in the vehicle section and the run rule states a unit that does not shoot may run during the shooting phase. Thus, a vehicle can run because it doesn't specifically say it can't. Rubbish.

Specious at best. There is not a rules section that says 'vehicles running', this is how we handle it. There is a section on 'vehicles in assault' and this is how we handle it.


Furthermore, in regards to this rule. If I was playing in a tournament and someone attempted to interpret the vehicle assault in this way, it would come to a roll-off (Per the rulebook when players cannot agree). In a roll-off you would have to roll a die anyway. If you won the roll, I would still feel cheated and disgruntled. If you lost the roll, you would feel cheated and disgruntled. Either way, the end result is we possibly mark down each other on sportsmanship, hurting us both in the tournament... and you had to roll off anyway! Why not just roll the 4+ to hit that is needed and skip all the drama.

Actually, if we were going to start arguing about this in a tourney, I would just tell you to do it your way. I don't argue about vague rules/interpretations/cover saves/movement in tournament unless it blatantly involves cheating/lack of rules knowledge. I just don't care enough. If I went out of the way to go to a tourney, it is because I wanted to devote a day(or 3) to playing new faces/styles/lists. Why would I want to turn that into a constant fight.
Now,
to quote myself...


Okay,
a friend was disadvantaged in a tourney, because the TO's and he did not share a similar viewpoint on assault progression and he didn't find that out till the day of the event.
I don't see it in the FAQ, and don't wish to refer to a Fan FAQ for clarification. I know how I play it, but want unbiased feedback.

Assault is normally resolved in initiative order, clearly defined on the BRB pg 36, with model removal on pg 39.
Vehicle assault is simplified and truncated(or totally different) on BRB pg 63.
Attacking a vehicle that is immobilized counts as an auto-hit (pg-63).

Now, as the vehicle assault table is separate from the assault infantry rules for hitting, is it handled the same?
It says to launch an assault and conduct per the norm (above the roll needed box, pg 63, two catagories up) It gives you a table (and clarifies that) hitting is solely based on speed of the target (questioning whether WS/Init values have any bearing).
I know this is a lot, but the question boils down to....

If a vehicle hit at initiative 4 (by a krak grenade Tac Marine) is immobilized, does the Pwr Fist (in the same combat and unit) then hit automatically at initiative 1?

As you can see here sir, I have not actually voiced an opinion on which side of the fence I personally lie. This event, and ruling, affected me as far as a friend in a DIFFERENT STATE had this ruling come against him in an event this last month.
In addition, I did not even state which side of the fence the ruling went, nor how it's difference in application affected even my friend.

My take? I think I may have been playing this wrong for a while...
I always played it that the status immobilized AND the status moved last turn were part of the same phrase intent...ie; the 'or' in "immobilized or did not move in it's last movement phase" was merely a conjunction connecting the two states, and that in actuality immobilized prior to this cc phase was the intent.
ie, under the way I've been playing, NO the fist didn't hit auto because the vehicle was immobilized by the krak grenades at init 4.
so,
Karandras
Thanks for the insult...much appreciated...too bad it missed the mark like a blind monkey shooting at a coconut.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Thank you,
all of you that contributed to this thread.
I was looking for other viewpoints to a conundrum.
I think I see the issue a little clearer now, and how I may have been playing things out the wrong way.
I wish to examine it further, but this really did help clarify my own take on it significantly.
I didn't want to throw my own opine in here till I'd seen alot of feedback.
I really did think that the Fist went the same time as all else.
Still not sure, but thinkin I might have been wrong! ;)

[karandras]

Exitus Acta Probat,

I now recognize that we were on the same page all along. Please accept my penance if my tone was overly harsh. It was not premeditated. Conflict is my career. I sometimes, while trying to assert my point of view, come across as overly opprobrious.

Clearly, you were not trying to manipulate the rules. Quite the contrary, it was an opponent of a friend in another state who was trying to manipulate the rules. It is all much clearer now. Shame on that guy! I must say though, that my analogy was not specious. It was irrational, but that was the point.

I wouldn't argue the point in a game either. Your view on that was spot on. It is a recreational hobby meant to be enjoyed. I have often let things slide simply to avoid the conflict from holding up the game.

I am new to the forums and have already once been chided for posting in all caps (I didn't know that meant I was shouting!). I only recently had the term "OP" explained to me. I will strive to improve my posted communications.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

NP:
I probably over-reacted anywho.
I DO see your point, thinking that someone may be looking to tweak or twist the rules solely for advantage, and not looking at the overall context. It drives me, well frankly, batty as well.

I really was looking for people's viewpoints, as my friend thought he'd been hosed, and my initial reaction was that he had...then I looked at it...then I wasn't sure.
I figured with the freshness of this particular forum, a lack of 'hierarchy' in the respondents would allow for a more honest string of responses.
Hadn't thought I'd be bringing to light something that might cause umbrage... :D
but knowing my own kneejerk reactions when I see someone perverting/subsuming the rules for pure advantage...yeah, I understood the ire. :o

[SombreBrotherhood]

Being a relative newb around here and only in the hobby since the waning days of 3rd edition, please ingest the single bit of NaCl with this post, though it may be thought provoking at the least...

I have played so that I4 krak grenades immobilize a Rhino and then the Sgt's I1 Power Fist coup de graces the vehicle. But, as I commonly gack up when it comes to rules, usually once a game, I commonly re-read the rulebook, and I found this paragraph at the tail end of Pg. 64 under Assault Phase as it applies to Vehicle Squadrons. The second sentence, with emphasis added by me, applies to the discussion:

Damage results have the same effect as described above , and are allocated against the squadron at each Initiative value, in the same way as a normal combat.

Thus, I think it proper to say what goes for a vehicle squadron goes for a single vehicle. Knocking off those weapons and immobilizing it first with krak grenades and glances matters when they come first, esp. since I manage to roll 3s on the damage table after a clean penetrating hit more than is right or deserved :).

[SeattleDV8]

Nice find, thanks for the quote.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

And leave it to the noob to find the answer!
Gawds I love people who don't have 5 editions of glut to over-write their limited mental resources with! (that's aimed at me)...
I've been playing it wrong, and my friend didn't get ganked!

Thank you Sombre, as seattle said...nice find!
:)

[Culven]

Gawds I love people who don't have 5 editions of glut to over-wright their limited mental resources with! (that's aimed at me)...
It obviously wasn't aimed at me. I only have three editions worth of rules swirling about the void that is my memory. ;)

I think this just goes to show that anyone can make a contribution, if they can find that one bit that GW hid in the rules.

[Lerra]

we've always played that you count the previous turns speed for the whole assault phase.

A question for people who use this rule (and there are enough of you that I'm assuming I'll play against someone who uses this interpretation at some point).

If a vehicle moves 12" during the opponents turn, and then you immobilize/stun it during your shooting phase, followed by an assault, do you hit on a 6+, or automatically? The vehicle was immobilized prior to the assault, but the previous turn's speed was 12".

I've always played with the understanding that you hit automatically, but considering that the TO determines how the game is played, I figure I better understand your point of view too.

[karandras]

Congratulations to SombreBrotherhood for finding the golden egg! I'm going home to read page 64, but it looks like that solves it!!!

Terra this is not an issue as the vehicle is clearly immobilized prior to the assault.

[BuFFo]

Immobilized results affects a unit's ability to hit the vehicle immediately.

Hence the usage of the word 'or' in the rule. Its one OR the other.

It either moved at a certain speed last turn, OR its immobilized.

So yes, a power fist would auto hit after a regular grenade Immobilizes the vehicle.

[Old_Paladin]

Immobilized results affects a unit's ability to hit the vehicle immediately.
Hence the usage of the word 'or' in the rule. Its one OR the other.
It either moved at a certain speed last turn, OR its immobilized.
So yes, a power fist would auto hit after a regular grenade Immobilizes the vehicle.

This is some peoples problem though, in english 'OR' can be used in two ways:
1) the 'either-or' way (ie, in either the event that the vehicle is immbolized; or if it moved last turn.)
2) the sentance shorting 'or' (ie, auto hit if: it is immoblized last turn or didn't move last turn = immoblized or didn't move last turn).

The rulebook doesn't say either; so adding that word can change the meaning.
Also, in the cases of 'either-or' people are always using a form of punctuation (commas, semi-colons, etc.) the rulebook doesn't have that either; which could be support for the other case.

[Jwolf]

This has been answered sufficiently, with a quote from a new player who actually read the book. In this case, BuFFo is on the right track, and Old Paladin is wandering in the darkness.

I believe the question to be asked and answered at this point, so please read the thread instead of posting further.

[Old_Paladin]

This has been answered sufficiently, with a quote from a new player who actually read the book. In this case, BuFFo is on the right track, and Old Paladin is wandering in the darkness.
I believe the question to be asked and answered at this point, so please read the thread instead of posting further.

Actually, Jwolf, I have read through all the posts, several times. I've been reading this since the begining.
The original question has been answered; you do use inititive.

I'm simply stating that the rules (as written); can be read two ways (and that both are just as valid, and you cannot just ignore one interpratation). For everyone saying that 'or' means 'either/or' and there is no other it could be; I'm just asking for a page number. Otherwise it very well could be a contraction.

Edit:
Ha ha, I found it, I knew it existed.
For further discussion listen to 40K Radio #41. This issue comes up. Of course, I'm defending Jar-Jar so I guess I win the arsehat award.

[Culven]

Old Paladin, even without "either", I think that the use of "is" (present tense) helps push the arguement toward the either-or interpretation. I would like to think that GW has enough of a grasp of English that they would have used "was" if they wanted immobilization in the previous turn to be the trigger rather than its state at the time of the attack. This would mean that they should have written "was immobilized or didn't move in its previous turn" instead of "is immobilized or didn't move in its previous turn".

[Old_Paladin]

Old Paladin, even without "either", I think that the use of "is" (present tense) helps push the arguement toward the either-or interpretation. I would like to think that GW has enough of a grasp of English that they would have used "was" if they wanted immobilization in the previous turn to be the trigger rather than its state at the time of the attack. This would mean that they should have written "was immobilized or didn't move in its previous turn" instead of "is immobilized or didn't move in its previous turn".

That is the most commpelling argument.
My responce (as I said before), is that if you use the term 'was' then people could say it wasn't immobilized last turn it was immobilized 3 turns ago. 'Is' covers all the bases.
This is best explained as questions and answers:
1) Was it immobilized last turn? No, it was immobilized two turns ago.
2) If it was immobilized turn turns ago, is it immobilized? Yes, it is immobilized.

After listening is Spencers argument, his point is that immobilzed isn't mentioned anywhere else; ie. it doesn't say hit on an 4+ if it moved Y, even if immobilized.

[Culven]

I see your point. Then it may have needed to say "was immobile last turn" if the designers wanted to ignore any changed to its condition from the end of the player's turn through the attacking player's turn.

It may be somewhat poorly written, but I still think that the either-or usage of "or" is the more stronly implied. Thus, I will contine to play as I have and check whether the vehicle is Immobile at the time the attack is made.

[Old_Paladin]

I'll also admit that in my mind there is some carry over from earlier editions; namely the idea that there was some momentum. Fast moving skimmers that were immobilized still continued to fly a little then crash.

5th doesn't have this. A skimmer does seem to drop straight out of the sky.
Also, If you stand in front of a tank thats going to run you over, punch it really hard (and shout I AM A MAN!), it stops at your feet (unless it has a Ork Deff-Rolla).

Not to involve real life, but I feel that a 60 tonne tank moving 50 MPH is still going to be just as hard to hit a second after a few tread-links fly off (it's still going to be flying around, skidding, etc.).
Anyone that has seen an F1 racing crash knows that even if it no longer has any wheels, axles or engine; that car is still moving 300 MPH for a few hundred feet.

[TSINI]

Not to involve real life, but I feel that a 60 tonne tank moving 50 MPH is still going to be just as hard to hit a second after a few tread-links fly off (it's still going to be flying around, skidding, etc.).
Anyone that has seen an F1 racing crash knows that even if it no longer has any wheels, axles or engine; that car is still moving 300 MPH for a few hundred feet.

yeah, but you do have to remember that the turn sequences would actually merge together into one, so even though the vehicle movement is (1 movement, 2 shooting, 3 assault, hand over, 4 enemy movement, 5 enemy shooting) 5-6 phases away from when it is likely to be immobilized, if you imagine them happening at the same time, the vehicle was probably immobilised halfway through its movement, skidding the rest of the way.



but back on the topic of the thread, I agree that innitiative should be used (that really was a great find by that guy!) and obviously this is how it will be played.

although I personally think that in the spirit of the game, it should really be ignored, they should all fight at the same time, as the vehicle would reach them all at the same time (the powerfist guy only has the same amount of time to hit the vehicle as anyone with a grenade - or the tank would roll on past. also it really is a multi-pronged barrel of bonuses for the attacker in an already "anti-tank" 5th edition combat.