Attack against vehicle

[damn-you-lorry]

There is the situation:

My rhino in my turn moves on 12". My opponent in his shooting phase immobilize rhino with lascannon. Then attack it with infantry squad. I have a question: does my opponent's squad have a automatic hit agains immobilized rhino? Or he must roll 6 to hit vehicle that move on 12" previous turn?

[Master Incarias]

The phrasing in the table ("immobilised or stationary in last turn") implies that Immobilised takes precedence. But it is contradictory, yes...

[Tfcdogbert]

Hits automatically, as its immobilized at the end of its movement, imagine it skidding to a stop infront of their charge.

 

Or if you want to compromise, hit on a 4+.

[Aidoneus]

Officially though, hit automatically. Once you immobilize it, it ain't movin'! :angry:

[El Magnifico]

i'd say officially, you would hit on 6's:

 

The phrasing in the table ("immobilised or stationary in last turn") implies that Immobilised takes precedence. But it is contradictory, yes...

 

assuming that "immobalised or stationary in its LAST TURN bit reads like that, then it is still hit on 6's if it moved over 6" in its last turn.

 

 

 

i can justify that with fluff but that has no bearing here :D

[nighthawks]

The hit is automatic. notice that the wording "is immobilized" is used. for all other criteria, they use tha past tense, therefore the current immobilized condition takes precedence.

 

it is not well worded, though. standard GW.

[Mycroft Holmes]

I don't understand the reasoning behind people saying it's hit automatically.

 

"immobilised or stationary in last turn"

 

It was NOT immobilized or stationary the last turn, it was immobilized in the SAME turn. It was immobilized in one Phase and assaulted in another Phase that are part of the SAME turn. Next turn, when it cannot move because it's immobilized, CC attacks will be automatic.

 

Unless someone sees something different?

 

 

Mycroft

[nighthawks]

The last turn must refer to the last PLAYER turn, as each TURN is really 2 turns. this is not well referenced nor Labled and casues some issues. if you are on player 2, turn 2, then who cares what the tank did in player 1, turn 1 (the "last turn" when it had the opportunity to do anything)? answer: no one. the actions undertaken in player 1, turn 2 are what matter in player 2, turn 2. likewise, player 1 turn 3 would refer to the actions of player 2 turn 2 for these issues.

 

An example, drawing from the Assaulting Vehicles section in the BBB.

 

assuming the tank belongs to player 1:

 

the tank moves in player 1 turn X, movment phase

 

the tank is shot and immobilised in player 2 turn X, shooting phase

the tank is assaulted in player 2 turn X, assaulting phase.

 

Using criterea for assaulting vehicles as follows:

"IS" the vehicle immobilized?

-Yes: automatic hit

-No: Did the vihicle move last turn (referring to last PLAYER turn, as the occurances of turn X-1 do not matter in player 2 turn X)?

- -No: Automatic hit

- -Yes: how far did it move?

- - -6" or less: hit on 4+

- - -Over 6": Hit on 6(+)

[El Magnifico]

check this link: linky

 

it is the errata for the 40k rulebook.

 

specifically, the 2nd question:

 

[...]always assume the word "turn" to mean "player turn" unless the text specifies game turn.[...]

 

so then, following nighthawks example:

 

 

player a moves <vehicle> 12 inches

 

Player b (in his/her turn) immobalises said vehicle

 

player b assaults the vehicle.

 

 

now the flow chart:

 

did the vehicle move in the last turn (being player a's turn) - Yes

if so, how far did it move - over 6"

 

 

 

 

you hit a vehicle on 6's if it moves over 6 inches regardless of other modifiers, immobalise has no effect untill a full turn has passed

 

 

 

 

edit: this is most likely a balance issue. imagine you assault a vehicle with 2 squads at the same time, the first squads attacks (hitting on whatever) manage to imobalise the vehicle does this mean the 2nd squads attacks hit automatically - even though they charged at the same time :P - NO!!!

[Master Incarias]

I feel I may have bungled the quoting... Bad me.

The full entry in the relevant part of the table is:

"Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its last turn".

 

Nothing else (barring mistakes on my part). The two conditions are separate sub clauses, and the To Hit score required applies if you are attacking a vehicle that is immobilised, or if you're attacking one that was stationary in its last turn.

 

The problem lies in whether this supercedes the entry before '6', or not...

[Mycroft Holmes]

El Magnifico has stated the way my groups have always played this. Being immobolized doesn't change how far you moved the last turn, which is the only consideration in determining what is needed to hit a non-ws vehicle in CC.

 

BUT

 

I see why nighthawks built his flow chart the way it is; I just don't agree with that reading of the grammar.

 

Mycroft

[nighthawks]

I can see the logic flowing either way, persoanlly. but the text is written, as I see it, such that imobilization supercedes movement rules. I think anyone who reads it based on the grammar and not the logic of the concept would agree.

[Dourine]

I guess it's different if you read it

"immobilized, or stationary in its last turn"

or

"immobilized or stationary, in its last turn"

 

Personally, i would go with

"immobilized or stationary, in its last turn"

 

But i could also fight for the other

...

thinking on it, i go for the other, here's my reasoning

You have a rhino moving around, he shoots it with LC.

Marines pile out.

He can then assault those marines.

So, effectively, in the assault phase, the shooting has already ended and you get the affects/bonuses of having the vehicle already been shot at and sitting there with a bunch of enemies sitting outside their immobilised vehicle.

[Master Incarias]

I guess it's different if you read it

"immobilized, or stationary in its last turn"

or

"immobilized or stationary, in its last turn"

 

Personally, i would go with

"immobilized or stationary, in its last turn"

 

Grammatically, the two are separated by the different tenses used. They are clearly put forth as "is immobilised" and "was stationary". I realise I confused things by quoting as I did... Or maybe you managed on your own? :P

 

Either way, if you read the full sentence, it's really rather clear that the argument for the second alternative is flawed. At least in my book.

[nighthawks]

Either way, if you read the full sentence, it's really rather clear that the argument for the second alternative is flawed. At least in my book.

Aye.

 

though Dourine does make a good point: the disembarked occupants of a vehicle that moved are assaulted as normal after disembarking from said vehicle after movement, even though they effectively presented less of a target for less time than the vehicle itself. They are assaulted normally, as are troops that moved on their own as far or farther than a vehicle. This suggests that the game designers' intention was that movment alone does not determine the assualt, which supports the idea that a vehicle imobilzed in the shooting phase of the same turn that it is assaulted "is imobilized" for the purposes of that assault (as it is written).

[SeattleDV8]

And if you think about it, vehicles are not stopped by assault(ie locked in) . so a moving vehicle( 4+ for up to 6" ,a 6 for over 6") is assaulted in passing. an immobilized vehicle has been stopped cold...so I agree with the auto hit.

[Tfcdogbert]

I think the fact thats its sequential is the answer, its immobilized before it is assaulted in the game sequence.

[njm3]

*Thread Necro Alert*

 

This still true for 5th edition?

 

Moved cruising speed on player turn, immobilized during enemy shooting phase, enemy charges... auto hit? 6+? Both entries qualify and there is no indication you read them in order...

[Mordekiem]

Nothing has changed and the wording I think is verbatim. If you assault an immobilelised vehicle then you auto hit no matter how far it moved on it's last turn.

[maniclurker]

I think that this question will only get answered with an FAQ. I personally believe that it is an automatic hit. If it read "immobilized, or stationary in last turn", or "immobilized or stationary, in last turn", then it would be clear. It's not that way. As such, you and you're opponent should make a compromise. 4+ would be good, but if you can't agree to that, then maybe dice it off.

 

Other than that, this is just going to be an issue that is going to cause unneccesary problems. From now on, you should discuss this with the opponent BEFORE the game, that way this is a non-issue if it occurs DURING the game.

[Wander]

The phrasing in the table ("immobilised or stationary in last turn") implies that Immobilised takes precedence. But it is contradictory, yes...

 

As in "It was Immobilized during the last turn, or it was stationary during the last turn." Immobilized *this* turn doesn't count. It's actually fairly sensible and a very simple rule of thumb; the tank always gets the benefit of what it did during the *previous* turn.

[Mordekiem]

I think that this question will only get answered with an FAQ. I personally believe that it is an automatic hit. If it read "immobilized, or stationary in last turn", or "immobilized or stationary, in last turn", then it would be clear. It's not that way.

The tenses are pretty clear. You do not need commas. You are also leaving out the verbs, which are quite important. The line reads (pg 63, BRB)

"Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in it's previous turn"

 

the word 'is' is a present tense verb. 'was' is a past tense verb. If you read it it that it had to be immobilised on it's previous turn it would be written like this,

"Attacking a vehicles that was immobilised or stationary in it's previous turn."

 

Notice the tense change and the dropping of the second 'was'.

 

To shed further light on the grammar. If you read the current line as the "in it's previous turn" applied to immbolised as well you are reading it as,

"Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised in it's previous turn."

 

This would be a grammatically incorrect sentence so it doesn't make sense to read it this way. So you can't apply the "in the previous turn" part of the sentence to the immobilised part.

 

 

It may also help some to look at pg 70 regarding fast vehicles in an assualt. It may help clear up the intention of the rule.

 

"Fast vehicles that moved 'flat out' in the previous turn and are not immobilised are hit on a 6 in assaults (exactly as if moving at cruising speed)."

 

This implies to me that immobilised fast vehicles are NOT hit on a 6 and lose the benefit of moving flat out. So you would use the immobilised line in the to hit chart. This also implies that vehicles that move at cruising speed would also lose the benefit of being hit on 6's.

 

If you are unsure about RAW, the best thing to do is to look and see if there are any clear intentions to the rules. I think if you combine pg 70 with pg 63 I think the intention is that an immobilised vehicle is automatically hit in CC and that is how you should read pg 63.

[SeattleDV8]

["Fast vehicles that moved 'flat out' in the previous turn and are not immobilised are hit on a 6 in assaults (exactly as if moving at cruising speed)."

 

This implies to me that immobilised fast vehicles are NOT hit on a 6 and lose the benefit of moving flat out. So you would use the immobilised line in the to hit chart. This also implies that vehicles that move at cruising speed would also lose the benefit of being hit on 6's.

 

If you are unsure about RAW, the best thing to do is to look and see if there are any clear intentions to the rules. I think if you combine pg 70 with pg 63 I think the intention is that an immobilised vehicle is automatically hit in CC and that is how you should read pg 63.

I must agree. It is very clear in 5th. if you're immobilised you get auto hit.

[maniclurker]

That definitely makes sense then.

[ArmouredWing]

There is the situation:

My rhino in my turn moves on 12". My opponent in his shooting phase immobilize rhino with lascannon. Then attack it with infantry squad. I have a question: does my opponent's squad have a automatic hit agains immobilized rhino? Or he must roll 6 to hit vehicle that move on 12" previous turn?

 

Simply put...

 

Your turn 1: Movement Phase - Your Rhino moves 12".

 

Opponents Turn 1: Shooting Phase - Enemy Lascannon immobilises Rhino.

Opponents Turn 1: Assault Phase - Enemy unit assaults Rhino.

 

So from the above you can see that the Rhino was not immobilised in the previous turn, it was immobilised and assaulted in the same turn, just different phases. This therefore means that it would take a 6 to hit in your opponents turn 1 but then they would auto hit in your opponets turn 2.