Fast Skimmers and Rune Priests...Got a weird one boys and girls

[Dooley]

I would think that the Skimmer would take the DT test before it moved. I would say this because it has started its move in DT and thus would need to take the test BEFORE it moved, if it fails it it does not move as teh Vehicle is now Imobilized. As far as word sniiping and trying to get a quick kill, the fact that the owning player said he WANTS to go flat out doesnt mean that he/she was able to. I would think that one would count as going Flat out ONLY if it moved the required FLAT OUT distance. You can claim any bonus for SAYING you are going flat out but only go say 6" so why would you get penalized on the inverse?

So if the owning player SAID they WANT TO go flat out but fail the DT test right off the bat the skimmer would sit were it is, now being immobilized, since it hasnt really moved at all.

[somerandomdude]

Along those same lines, the rules for Fast vehicles actually say "a fast vehicle going flat out moves more than 12" and up to 18")

This is then expanded in the Skimmer section which says it can move up to 24"

In order to be classified as moving flat out, though, you must move more than 12" away, as that is what the rules say. If you're in the exact same spot, then you didn't move more than 12".

[Tynskel]

remember that if you take the terrain test as infantry, you must abide by the roll, even if you do not reach such terrain.

[blackarmchair]

@ Somerandomdude

Difficult terrain tests happen before the move. Dangerous terrain tests say to roll a d6 for every model that begins in, moves through, or ends in the terrain and on a 1 they suffer a wound (or in the case of a vehicle an immobilized result).

The issue is that when you fulfill multiple conditions for a dangerous terrain test (starting in, moving through and ending in) there is no guide as to when exactly the test is taken as it is just as valid to say that a test is required for entering terrain as it is to say that it is relevant for moving through terrain.

Real world common sense would tell us that you take it before you move - in the real world that's how it would work - but the 40k rulebook doesn't actually say when the test is to be taken. In most cases this is easily resolved, if a rhino moves into one piece of 4"x4" area terrain and rolls a 1 it gets immobilized as it entered the terrain because it is only fulfilling 1 of the necessary conditions of the dangerous terrain test. It's obvious that the terrain piece that immobilized the rhino is the one it should be stuck in.

In this case we have a 24" bubble of "terrain" and all 3 conditions are being met. To compound the issue it is highly relevant to know how fast the skimmer will (is planning to?) move because if it moves flat out it can become wrecked/lose the squad inside.

@Tynskel
Yup. I only used infantry as an example to show that we often move the model and then take the test in 40k meaning that when multiple necessary conditions are met the chronologically 1st one is not always the one employed.

@Dooley
See what I wrote to Tynskel. The chronologically first test is not always the relevant one.

[blackarmchair]

Just came across something I missed previously.

In the description of "Tempest's Wrath" it says that the skimmer only counts the area as dangerous terrain if it ENDS its movement phase in range of the priest so that would mean when it began to move it wouldn't count it as dangerous terrain until it landed.

That solves the problem in a way.

I'm still interested to know what the ruling would be if the skimmer were just in one giant-*** piece of terrain though...

[Tynskel]

'Infantry' (anything that abides by infantry type movement) have to consider their movement before they move.

here's the thing for vehicles (other than walkers).

There is a time component to the rules--- you only take the test if you are doing something related to the test. You just move your vehicle, and when you encounter a piece of terrain, you roll the test. I have never seen anyone declare where the vehicle is going, then move– I have just seen people move, and roll at the first piece of 'dangerous' terrain encountered. Nor have I seen people announce they are moving 'Flat Out', 'Cruising Speed', or 'Combat Speed' ahead of time.

In the case where the vehicle 'starts' in dangerous terrain, the test is taken immediately.

[blackarmchair]

Again, I'm not proposing that vehicles are slowed by difficult terrain. All I am saying is that in the case of infantry it is shown that the first condition necessary to trigger a test is not always the relevant one.

Agreed. There is a time component to rules, that specifically is what is making the ambiguity here.

If we can see that:
1) the first sufficient condition is not always the relevant one
and
2) multiple such conditions exist

we're left without a way to negotiate them.

[Xas]

Again, I'm not proposing that vehicles are slowed by difficult terrain. All I am saying is that in the case of infantry it is shown that the first condition necessary to trigger a test is not always the relevant one.

Agreed. There is a time component to rules, that specifically is what is making the ambiguity here.

If we can see that:
1) the first sufficient condition is not always the relevant one
and
2) multiple such conditions exist

we're left without a way to negotiate them.

could you please re-specify your point #1.

reading trough all your posts I havent found anything that would proof or even hint to that so this seams a bit taken out of thin air, however I do accept the fact that I might be overreading some sentence/paragraph or misjudging the intended meaning.

to me the "relevant condition" is the one that forces the model in question to make a dangerous terrain check. all other "side effects" of the dangerous terrain test are irrelevant to the rules if not clearly staten otherwise (example wise it isnt in any way relevant for determing a model's armor/invul/cover save if the weapon in queastion is a pinning weapon even if it could possibly change the effects of a failed save)


to clarify #2:
you mean there exist the 3 conditions for a dangerous terrain test:
a) start within dangerous terrain
b) move trough dangerous terrain
c) end your move in dangerous terrain

assuming this is correct I further have to note that a)&c) merge into b) on an infinitesimal small scale of movement for anything that is NOT moving like jump infantry / jetbikes / (whatever the tau thingy is called that moves 6" like jump infantry in movement AND assoult). you cannot start your move within dangerous terrain without moving trough it (unless you define the wording "moving trough" as that your start and end point are outside of dangerous terrain) neither can you end your movement within them without moving trough. Therefore I will assume my definition of "moving trough" (cause otherwise the phrase in question would have no sense at all as all jump-type move does NEVER move "trough" anything).

the way the rulebook lists it is that it first names a), then condition b) and as last condition c).

As there is no direct statement of a point in time WHEN you take that test my initial statement still stands in that you can do one of two things:

A) you take the order in which the rule lists the condition (and which incidentally is the same as "real life time mechanics" would imply) as an order that the first condition triggers the test immediatelly

B) you discard common sense by the argument that the rules do not allways follow it and often have abstract mechanics AND discard the order in which the rules list it by the argument that you simply cannot list things at the same sentence-time on a two-dimensional medium. this leads to NO TIME AT ALL beeing fixed and therefore the test can be take at ANY POINT IN TIME. This includes:
- the first time the test is triggered
- the last time the test is triggere
- at the start of the following shooting phase
- after the unit in question has shot in the following shooting phase
- above two replacing shooting phase with the assoult phase
...
- once in a blue moon
- at the end of the game
- at the start of the next game
- on the owning player's next marriage
- on the oponents funeral

I gues that 1d6 wouldnt be enough to "roll off" for all the possible outcomes if your oponent is creative and that the chance of your favourable outcome to do the test just after the flat-out movement to destroy the vehicle in question would converge towards zero (simply because you want to fix one concrete point in time but without any rules to determine it you have the whole nonfinite manifold of time as other possibilities).


some issues that not accepting the "common sense" order would possibly cause:
a) the test not beeing made within the timeframe of the game at all
b) if the test is made after all movement it would take the danger off assoult vehicles (as the passengers could simply disembark after the vehicle moved its unhindered 12" but before the test is made and so be unaffected)
c) with no point fixed you could easily cheat yourself (any sane person starting a skimmer vehicle from DT rolls the dice before moving said vehicle. if he fails the test and you call him out on makeing the roll at the wrong time a smart person will gladly accept to redo-the whole action and in doing so you grant him a free reroll to that passed save. if you want to argue above situation in reverse when the vehicle passes its save you'll simply be called a rules-lawyering cheat).
d) skimmers with a non-standard disembarkation rule can use a situation similar to b) and avoid their passengers destruction even after beeing immobilized from starting in DT and then moving 24" and simply deploying their troops by their special rule when they never were ment to move at all (with the vehicle beeing destroyed in the end it will even make the scattering far saver as there is no chance of scattering into the vehicle itself which by then is a wrack).
e) other 90% of the can of worms I havent yet thought of :P

[blackarmchair]

Ok, dude.

I'm a pretty rational guy and my argument is not that difficult to understand. I'm trying to negotiate what is a very ambiguous concept and I understand that you disagree - I respect your opinion and your right to.

But there really is no reason to be sarcastic, call me names or make ridiculous analogies that frankly insult both of us.

I'm not even stating an opinion on the subject, I'm completely fine with either ruling I just wanted to understand something that - to me - seems unclear.

I've already been very specific about the questions you asked in your post; I like BoLS let's please not flamewar on it.

[Tynskel]

Fire Fire Fire!

And I didn't start it.

Damnity.