attacking immobolised vehicles in combat

[nurglez]

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, tried using the search function and couldnt find what i was looking for.

 

I charge a vindicator with my daemon prince (I5) and a squad of plague marines (I3) with a champion with a powerfist (I1).

 

The vindicator moved 6 inches in its turn.

 

I need 4's to hit it with my daemon prince, he hits it once and immobolises it, now my plague marines attack...

 

Do they

 

a) hit it automatically as now it is immobolised

 

or

 

b)hit it on 4's as it had moved 6 inches previously

 

we played it that as the rules state when attacking an immobolised vehicle you hit automatically, but this still felt slightly wrong to me (even though it was in my favor).

[Seahawk]

As it was immobilized when it was attacked by the plague marines, it's now hit automatically. Feels real weird but that's how it is.

[Thantoes]

Personally I would say that it would be hit automatically on the next round. The fact that a hit imobilises it in combat does not negate the fact that it moved 6 inches in the movement phase. I would liken it to a chaplains litanies of hate. Just because the chaplain died did not mean that the assault marines lost the ability to re-roll misses in the first round.

 

Just my interpretation.

[Gurth]

Both are valid interpretations of the rules, IMHO … :) The reason being, the table says that you hit automatically if the vehicle "is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn" — which seems to suggest that this applies as soon as the vehicle becomes immobilised; however, the next entry on the table says you hit on a 4+ if the vehicle "moved at combat speed in its previous turn". The problem is that a vehicle can be/have done both, like in your example, and no explanation is given in other rules or supporting examples as far as I can tell. It's probably one of those cases where it's best to agree before the game which of the two you're going to use, I think.

 

It would have been much better if the first entry had read "was immobilised in a previous turn or was stationary in its previous turn", but then again, these are GW rules we're talking about here …

[Seahawk]

If you think about it common sensically, the DP flies faster to the vehicle, ripping off the tracks and making it screech to a stop. By the time the plague marines get there (2 ticks of initiative later, or probably about 3-8 seconds later...heh), it is now immobile. Is it easier to hit a now immboile vehicle? Heck yes. I suppose a wheeled, fast vehicle (like an ork truck) wouldn't make as much sense because it keeps hurtling on if a wheel pops off or the engine is busted. Tracked vehicles stop almost immediately. Huzzah for blanket rules?

[Iron_Chaos_Brute]

Auto-hit.

[Thantoes]

If you think about it common sensically, ?

 

What is this "common sense" you speak of? Heresy I say. Honestly though, I am sure we have all been in enough arguments over rules intepretations to know that common sense is not something to be found when it comes to said rules arguments

 

One could also look at it and using common sensecal thoughts say that the in reality there would be mere seconds between the blows from the DP and plague marines and in that time the rhino would have traveled a bit before coming to a stop. A tank that looses a track doesnt stop dead in an instant, it rolls off its track first and then stops when the wheels hit the ground.

 

This is YET another example of the rules contradicting each other and this one could be easily argued either way with solid rules backing up each point of view. Best thing I think would be a roll-off

[Roland Durendal]

No worries bud, issues like this arise a lot.

 

For example a guy I play frequently fervently insists that if his vehicle moves (say for the sake of the argument cruising speed) that he needs 6's to hit regardless of whether it becomes immob'd.

 

Constant argument ensures, primarily b/c what usually happens is I immob said vehicle in my shooting phase and then assault it in my Assault phase, and he tries to say since it moved Cruising it needs 6's. I say it plainly states that if the vehicle is immobilized, it's auto-hit. The only way I can slightly see his reasoning is if it is implied that the immob status is taken at the beginning of his movement phase, than he would be correct. But reading it at face value with no implied meanings, rules clearly state "IS Immobilized", regardless of when said immob'd occurs.

 

For your situation though, it is a tough call b/c technically you both are right. I would side with the auto-hits though.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Both are valid interpretations of the rules, IMHO … :lol: The reason being, the table says that you hit automatically if the vehicle "is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn" — which seems to suggest that this applies as soon as the vehicle becomes immobilised; however, the next entry on the table says you hit on a 4+ if the vehicle "moved at combat speed in its previous turn". The problem is that a vehicle can be/have done both, like in your example, and no explanation is given in other rules or supporting examples as far as I can tell. It's probably one of those cases where it's best to agree before the game which of the two you're going to use, I think.

 

It would have been much better if the first entry had read "was immobilised in a previous turn or was stationary in its previous turn", but then again, these are GW rules we're talking about here …

I am with Gurth it all depends on if you read it as

(is immobilised or was stationary) in its previous turn

or

(is immobilised) or (was stationary in its previous turn)

 

 

There is an argument for the diference in tense between is and was, however GW's own lack of internal consitency in syntax makes it a VERY weak argument.

 

Honestly the best thing to do (espeicaly if its something that comes up in your games) is mention it at the very begining and roll off if theres a disagrement.

[nighthawks]

personally - I play that imobilized from shooting is assaulted with auto-hits in the same player turn. Otherwise, for all assault phase hits we work out against movement as normal because the init doesn't matter, here, really. we roll all attacks together whenever possible and right to do so.

 

This is not RAW necessarily, but as close to a compromise between the valid readings of the rules that we could find that seems to feel right.

[DevianID]

I am in the camp that an immobilized vehicle is hit automatically, or a vehicle that did not move in its previous turn is hit automatically. Basically I believe the statement 'is immobilized in its previous turn' to be false.

 

Think about this, what happens if you get immobilized in the enemies turn by a charging powerfist, who needed to roll 6's to hit because the vehicle moved 12 inches in its previous turn. Then, in your turn, because you are immobilized and thus can not move, you are hit again in your close combat. However, if playing by the rule that you are hit in close combat based on your 'previous turns movement' then the powerfist will have to roll 6's to hit you, because while in the current turn you are immobilized, in the previous turn you moved 12 inches.

 

Thus, I hope that example shows a hole in the entire 'previous turn' bit, and why I play that as soon as you are immobilized attacks start hitting you automatically.

[Souchan]

I am in the camp that an immobilized vehicle is hit automatically, or a vehicle that did not move in its previous turn is hit automatically. Basically I believe the statement 'is immobilized in its previous turn' to be false.

 

Think about this, what happens if you get immobilized in the enemies turn by a charging powerfist, who needed to roll 6's to hit because the vehicle moved 12 inches in its previous turn. Then, in your turn, because you are immobilized and thus can not move, you are hit again in your close combat. However, if playing by the rule that you are hit in close combat based on your 'previous turns movement' then the powerfist will have to roll 6's to hit you, because while in the current turn you are immobilized, in the previous turn you moved 12 inches.

 

Thus, I hope that example shows a hole in the entire 'previous turn' bit, and why I play that as soon as you are immobilized attacks start hitting you automatically.

 

Actually it wouldn't as the immobilised was also the previous turn and thus would kick in.

[Seahawk]

Bad example. A better one is tank shocking. A vehicle TS's 12", gets immobilized there. So now it both moved fast and was immobilized in the previous turn. Which takes precedence?

 

On a similar note, I played a game last night where the guy swore I needed 6's to his drop pods with my meltabombs (warpjaws) because they moved as cruising speed the previous turn...but were also immobilized the same turn. Same thing as the tank shock bit above. Which takes precedence? Obviously, immobilized does, as that happened second.

[chaplain_quint]

If only the BRB would not contradict itself so much... sigh..

 

I'm floating here, both camps have legit arguments. I would say roll of, but that is ust 'cause I'm confused.

[nighthawks]

simple (addition to RAW) answer is that if it started the player turn immobilized, then it is immobilized for all purposes of shooting and assaulting.

 

if it started the player turn OK and is immobilized in the shooting round, then the subsequent shooting units count is at immobilized, and likewise for assaulting.

 

if it is assaulted mobile, treat is as mobile, or threat it on an initiative level, but I think that this is unnecessaryily complex...

 

this basically satisfies the "is immobilized" wording. but technically, due to lack of official clarification, houserules.

[Frogstaff]

If only the BRB would not contradict itself so much... sigh..

 

I'm floating here, both camps have legit arguments.

Not really. There are two conditions for auto-hitting.

 

Was it stationary? Past tense, referring to previous action.

 

IS it immobilized?

 

Present tense, what is it's current condition? Since you resolve damage inflicted at each intiative step, it is possible to Immobilize a vehicle at one step, and then have a slower unit auto-hit because it IS immobilized when they reach it.

[Gurth]

You conveniently ignore the next entry on the table, which uses the vehicle's last movement to say it is hit on a 4+, thereby casting doubt on the "present tense" method of determining what happens.

[Praeger]

This is one rule that has always been problematic.

 

Reading the rule there are actually two complete difrent correct ways of reading the rule:

 

Is it X OR Y in its last turn?

 

Saying it like this shows that the question really says - is it X last turn? was it Y last turn?

 

The other way of reading it is this:

 

Is it X, or Y in the last turn?

 

Saying it like this comes across as - it it X RIGHT NOW? or was it Y last turn?

 

Sadly both ways are correct - I lean more for the 1st as really to say it the second way you do need the comma (which dosnt exist in the rule) but thats just me :)

[Frogstaff]

You conveniently ignore the next entry on the table, which uses the vehicle's last movement to say it is hit on a 4+, thereby casting doubt on the "present tense" method of determining what happens.

Very well then. Apply all applicable results. Roll you attacks. Any results of a 4+ hit, satisfying section of the table. Then apply all the other rolls of 1+, since they hit automatically. ;)

[Ming]

I would argue that since the vehicle moved 6 inches in its previous turn, all CC against it this turn needs a 4+ to hit. Reason being, we move all assaulting units at the beginning of the assault phase into contact, then perform the assault results, typically in iniative order. This example would be a combined assault against the Vindie. For the most part, since the Vindia has no I or A (cannot defend itself), the chaos player picks up all his dice and rolls them more or less at the same time (the assaults were declared after all). All results occur...roll all the dice for hits, then roll the dice for all pens, then roll the outcomes. You don't stop when the vehicle is wrecked, because for example, additional "same assault phase" damage may cause it to explode in the same assault phase, which may have other game effects. KnowhatImean? Someplace in the BRB there may be text IIRR that says no unit can hold back from the declared assault, and that would apply here. Having a collection of different color dice in this case would be appropriate to quickly resolve the assault.

[Zieggenfus]

Further reflection seems to indicate that I have nothing of value to add beyond GW rule sets are notoriously badly written.

 

I believe that vehicle condition is determined at the start of a turn. It can be (more?) reasonably argued that vehicle condition is determined at the start of a phase.

 

Trying to argue that a vehicle that was mobile at the start of a phase, suffers an immobilizing result during that phase, and is then treated as immobile for the rest of the same phase, is definitely pushing it.

 

Many in my group play with the house rule that a vehicle is consider immobile for the turn, if during the previous turn it immobilized itself during a terrain test, but that is just a house rule.

 

Edit:

 

Dang it. assaults go in initiative order. While shooting is considered simultaneous, CC clearly is not. I think I have to climb down off my high horse.

 

While it is possible to argue that an immobilized result during the current assault phase permits all subsequent CC attacks in the same phase to automatically hit, anyone who I played against who even insisted on a die roll to resolve the question would receive a win via concession, and never be played again. I think this is pushing it, but have now decided that the question merits at least a roll off. I contend that the vehicle condition for "to hit" purposes is determined when the assault is declared, but the rule lends itself to an instantaneous determination.

 

As far as being immobilized in the shooting phase, then assaulted in the assault phase:

I believe, again, the controlling factor should be did the vehicle move during it's previous movement phase. I have played both ways.

 

The rule is sufficiently unclear as to allow either interpretation.

 

hrmmm, I'm going to have to change my default stance to "vehicle condition is determined at the start of the phase", it just make to much sense. A Tau vehicle hit during the shooting phase drops to it's skids.... I don't see how a vehicle on skids can be considered skimming.