hitting vehicles

[gravmania]

Rules say if vehicle moved >6" you need 6's to hit etc.

 

Also, "if vehicle is immobilized or hasn't moved in its previous turn you auto-hit."

 

 

I used to interpret this as "immobilized in its previous turn" or "hasn't moved in its previous turn".

 

One can also interpret this as "immobilized" or "hasn't moved in its previous turn"

 

 

Recently I've come to believe the latter interpretation is the right one.

This means, If shooting immobilizes a vehicle in a shooting-phase an assaulter will then auto-hit it in the assault-phase.

 

 

Now my question:

Suppose my Character immobilizes a vehicle on Initiative 5 in assault.

Then my troops will strike on Initiative 4, will my troops then auto-hit?

[JamesI]

Yep. The Vehicle is immobilized, so you auto hit.

[Albion de Heaven]

it also means that you can immobilize a vehicle hitting it at initiative 5 and then autohit him at initiative >5

[Ntin]

“Attacking a vehicle that is immobilized or was stationary in its previous turn – Automatic Hit” – pg. 63 Little Rule Book

 

There is little ambiguity to the sentence but the tense could be overlooked. The same rule could be reworded with more emphasis on the tense of the first predicate of the conjunction. “The target vehicle is currently immobilized or was stationary in its previous turn”.

 

it also means that you can immobilize a vehicle hitting it at initiative 5 and then autohit him at initiative >5

 

That is an interesting point.

[Morticon]

Came up in my game yesterday. A brief consultation with the books and we both agreed thats whats written.

 

When its your initiative turn is the vehicle immobilised?

Yes?

Then follow the rules in the book.

(Which lead us to that conclusion!)

[hisdudeness]

I disagree with all the above.

 

The problem that I see is that you don't use Initiative when you assault a vehicle, all attacks occur at the same time. I see no place on p63 that we are told to attack in Initiative order. Which is frankly silly as vehicle assaults are generally one sided why would you need to follow Initiative order? Given that GW has made a move to streamline the game, I fail to see why they would insert a time wasting mechanic.

 

In the Combat results paragragh we are even told that combat against vehicles is very different from those amoung other unit types.

[Ntin]

You are still assaulting a vehicle. The assault phase is done group by group in initiative order. Vehicles have WS –, I -, and A –. This implies that they simply do not participate in an assault in which they are being attacked. It also does not say on page 63 that my Rhino sprout arms and legs to defend itself when being attacked. The rulebook does not need reiterate the basic assault rules as all it modifies is how vehicles are hit in melee combat.

[pingo]

This is a bit of a grey area.

 

Vehicles don't have WS -, I -, or A -. Those characteristics do not exist for them at all and are irrelevant.

 

The rulebook describes walkers as a special case for vehicles as, unlike others, they do have these characteristics. We chouldn't think in terms of the vehicle having similar characteristics to infantry (except BS).

 

However, when describing assaults on vehicles, the BRB (p. 63) states that the assault move is conducted just as normal, and also as normal all engaged models attack.

 

This seems to be as far as the 'as normal' goes. It gives no order in which hits should be decided, so I guess you're supposed to all roll at the same time.

[Mal]

For the rule to mean immobalised in the previous turn it should be worded: "if vehicle is immobilized, or hasn't moved, in its previous turn you auto-hit."

 

The use of commas denotes both factors link to the end statement. Without commas the 'or' adjective breaks the sentence meaning both are unique critera.

 

Therefore, if the vehicle is immobalised when you hit it you hit automatically, also if the vehicle did not move in its previous turn, you hit it automatically.

 

If the vehicle moved >6" then you hit on 6+, if the vehicle moved <=6" then you hit on a 4+.

 

That is everything you need to know when hitting a non-walker vehicle. (n.b bikes and other like devices are not classified by rules to be vehicles forthe purpose of these rules as they use the riders statistics as regular infantry units).

[hisdudeness]

Don't buy it.

 

Your reason for using initiative order is that the rule book does not reiterate basic assault rules, yet right above rolling to hit is a lauching an assault (which is conducted as normal assault rules). If conducted as normal why restate them?

 

There is no way that initiative comes into play when you assault a vehicle. Rules don't tell me to under the Vehicles and Assault section to use normal assault order rules. Places where you are to use normal rules you are told.

 

edit: pingo beat me to the punch. Although I really do not see this as a grey area.

[greatcrusade08]

I think this is a case of over thinking an issue.

 

The rule clearly states OR in the sentence, so if it is immobilised OR didnt move....

 

And since your own troops strike at intitiative value regardless of opponent, be it a vehicle, walker or anything else then your correct if an I5 character immobilises a vehicle the rest of the lower I troops auto hit it.

 

Pure RAW

 

GC08

[pingo]

Although I really do not see this as a grey area.

 

No, not as grey as all that I'll admit. Just grey enough to be a little confusing.

 

RAW, models assaulting a vehicle all attack at the same time.

 

IMHO.

[hisdudeness]

The grammar argument is one of the silliest that can be used to interpret GW rules. To do so implies that the GW staff use grammar correctly and/or the text is edited for correct use of grammar. I am pretty sure the consensus is that they do not.

 

So trying to ‘re-grammar’ a sentence to fit one side or the other is in affect re-writing the rules. And at that point you leave the land of RAW and enter the crazy and ever changing realm of RAI.

 

RAW: I wish to assault a vehicle. So I turn to p33 and follow the rules written…ah but I see nothing in the assault section about assaulting vehicles. So I look in the index and see a Vehicles and Assault section. In this section I see a Launching an assault paragraph, and since this is what I wish to do I do as it is written.

And it states, when (the Assault phase), how (as normal assaulting other enemy units), and who (as normal, all engaged models). Sweet, I assault move as normal. Now I want to hit the offending vehicle. I continue reading on page 63, and see a Rolling to hit against vehicles section. It states that the speed of the vehicle determines what I will need to hit and to refer to the table to find D6 roll needed. I see nothing that says determine which order my unit attacks. Thus at this point I know what I need to roll to hit and roll with all models engaged.

 

I see no place that tells me to do otherwise and I can complete that entire assault to its conclusion so there is no need for me to look back in the index to find a rule that addresses an impasse I do not have.

[greatcrusade08]

RAW, models assaulting a vehicle all attack at the same time.

 

IMHO.

 

Is this a rule, cuz i may have skipped that bit of the rulebook... oops

[pingo]

RAW, models assaulting a vehicle all attack at the same time.

 

IMHO.

 

Is this a rule, cuz i may have skipped that bit of the rulebook... oops

 

I did say, 'IMHO' after all.

 

Generally, I don't feel it's 'safe' to do things that aren't explicitly stated in the rules.

 

If something isn't explicit, then try and interpret it, with your opponent, as best you can.

 

If all else fails, use 'The Most Important Rule'.

[greatcrusade08]

i honestly thought id missed a bit in the rules... never mind a "roll off" it is then.

 

IMO i agree with hisdudeness (cool name)

 

And it states, when (the Assault phase), how (as normal assaulting other enemy units), and who (as normal, all engaged models). Sweet, I assault move as normal. Now I want to hit the offending vehicle. I continue reading on page 63, and see a Rolling to hit against vehicles section. It states that the speed of the vehicle determines what I will need to hit and to refer to the table to find D6 roll needed. I see nothing that says determine which order my unit attacks. Thus at this point I know what I need to roll to hit and roll with all models engaged.

 

It doesnt state an attack order, but since it does state you "attack as normal assaulting other enemy units" (using wording above) then we would use "normal" rules for initiative attack order, especially given this rule doesnt override them in any way..

 

it may be a bit back and forth in the rulebook, but its all there.

 

Gc08

[hisdudeness]

Really? You are trying to use my wording, taken out of context, to prove your view?

 

I shall restate for clarity, as opposed to the narrative example I gave in post #13.

 

In the assault phase section(p33-42), it does not give any indication on how the assault a vehicle. So we must look to the vehicle and assault section and follow those rules. This is what I see written:

 

1) Launching the assault:

“The assault move is conducted just the same as assaulting other enemy units.” (See what I did there, I used the entire sentence. Not one edited to fit my view.) So we refer to all rules used to make assault moves as we are told to.

 

2) Rolling to hit against vehicles:

We are told to refer to the table to determine score needed to hit. No more, no less. We also know from the Launching the assault section all models engaged will attack. No where does it state they attack in Initiative order.

 

At no point from launching assault and rolling to hit are we told to determine order of attacks. To stop and refer to another section of the book at this point (when you are not told to) is just your RAI. You don’t get to go back and forth as you see fit.

[Albion de Heaven]

i honestly thought id missed a bit in the rules... never mind a "roll off" it is then.

 

IMO i agree with hisdudeness (cool name)

 

And it states, when (the Assault phase), how (as normal assaulting other enemy units), and who (as normal, all engaged models). Sweet, I assault move as normal. Now I want to hit the offending vehicle. I continue reading on page 63, and see a Rolling to hit against vehicles section. It states that the speed of the vehicle determines what I will need to hit and to refer to the table to find D6 roll needed. I see nothing that says determine which order my unit attacks. Thus at this point I know what I need to roll to hit and roll with all models engaged.

 

It doesnt state an attack order, but since it does state you "attack as normal assaulting other enemy units" (using wording above) then we would use "normal" rules for initiative attack order, especially given this rule doesnt override them in any way..

 

it may be a bit back and forth in the rulebook, but its all there.

 

Gc08

 

 

I think that there is no place where it says that you don't use initiative, it just says it's a standard assault and only change to hit roll and combact resolution.

 

There is also something different to consider, you all have stated things like you got engaged only with the vehicle but it can happen that you are engaged both with a vehicle and an enemy unit, so you USE initiative, think about your initiative 5 IC that hit the vehicle and it blows up wounding and killing some models.

Or for example you have a vehicle destroyed on initiative 5, you don't want/need to blows your hit at lower initiative risking to cause an explosion of the vehicle, it is alredy destroyed so you shouldn't be able anymore to hit it (can u kill twice an enemy model? :D)

 

my 2 cents

[hisdudeness]

@Albion de Heaven:

 

P63 LRB, second column, top paragraph, last sentence: "In a multiple fight including enemy vehicles and other unit types, the result is worked out as normal against the latter, ignoring the vehicles."

 

You can not mutli-assault a unit and a vehicle at the same time. So Initiative still does not come into play.

[Seahawk]

You took that extremely out of context and apparently didn't read the first part of the paragraph? It's talking about combat resolution, ie what happens when the combat is over. In this case, if a unit assaulted an infantry unit and a vehicle unit (perfectly legal, btw), the attacker must consolidate into the infantry and leave the vehicle alone.

[hisdudeness]

LOL! Thanks for proving my point about cherry picking words to prove ones point as greatcrusade08 choose to do. You can prove most things by cherry picking the rules and applying them out of context.

 

In truth, multiple combats with a vehicle and non-vehicle would be a gray area. We cannot say that one situations rules trump anothers (in this case normal assault v. vehicle assaults) when they overlap. This situation has multiple sections and we cannot just choose which section we should follow and ignore the rest. Worse, we cannot just merge the 2 sections picking bits of both as we see fit and still contend that we are playing by RAW.

 

And that is the basis of my argument: RAW. Not how I would play it or how a random group plays it, but how it is written in the rules. Could GW writers think that the section was perfectly clear on what to do? Sure, the author normally knows his own intent, but we can only go off what is written.

[Ntin]

Vehicles don't have WS -, I -, or A -. Those characteristics do not exist for them at all and are irrelevant.

 

Rulebook page 63, “As the vehicle has no WS”.

Rulebook page 7, “Some creatures have been given a ‘0’ for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a ‘-‘).”

 

If vehicles did not have WS -, I-, or A- it would cause problems as the characteristics would be unrepresented. It establishes a basis on how these model types interact with other models in the assault phase. Without such a clause an argument that a rhino has A: 30 would be as valid as A: 0.

 

For the rule to mean immobalised in the previous turn it should be worded: "if vehicle is immobilized, or hasn't moved, in its previous turn you auto-hit."

 

The use of commas denotes both factors link to the end statement. Without commas the 'or' adjective breaks the sentence meaning both are unique critera.

 

How you rewrote the rule also changed its meaning, although it is grammatically correct. The conjunction “or” combines two sentences together in the way you rewrote the sentence part of the predicate is being applied to both sentences. “Attacking a vehicle (that is immobilized) or (was stationary in its previous turn)”. Either or both of these conditions need to be true for “automatic hit” to be true as well.

 

Don't buy it.

 

Your reason for using initiative order is that the rule book does not reiterate basic assault rules, yet right above rolling to hit is a lauching an assault (which is conducted as normal assault rules). If conducted as normal why restate them?

 

There is no way that initiative comes into play when you assault a vehicle. Rules don't tell me to under the Vehicles and Assault section to use normal assault order rules. Places where you are to use normal rules you are told.

 

edit: pingo beat me to the punch. Although I really do not see this as a grey area.

 

Page 63, “A unit can assault a vehicle in the Assault phase. The assault move is conducted just the same as assaulting other enemy units. As normal, all engaged models will attack”.

 

There is nothing on the page that confirms or even supports your hypothesis. Aside from an alteration on how models hit the targeted vehicle, all other rules for assaulting a target are unchanged. Models will fight in initiative groupings. It would be redundant to reprint several pages of assault rules when they are alerting a small section of it and then explicitly tell you the rest works as normal.

 

The grammar argument is one of the silliest that can be used to interpret GW rules. To do so implies that the GW staff use grammar correctly and/or the text is edited for correct use of grammar. I am pretty sure the consensus is that they do not.

 

So trying to ‘re-grammar’ a sentence to fit one side or the other is in affect re-writing the rules. And at that point you leave the land of RAW and enter the crazy and ever changing realm of RAI.

 

RAW: I wish to assault a vehicle. So I turn to p33 and follow the rules written…ah but I see nothing in the assault section about assaulting vehicles. So I look in the index and see a Vehicles and Assault section. In this section I see a Launching an assault paragraph, and since this is what I wish to do I do as it is written.

And it states, when (the Assault phase), how (as normal assaulting other enemy units), and who (as normal, all engaged models). Sweet, I assault move as normal. Now I want to hit the offending vehicle. I continue reading on page 63, and see a Rolling to hit against vehicles section. It states that the speed of the vehicle determines what I will need to hit and to refer to the table to find D6 roll needed. I see nothing that says determine which order my unit attacks. Thus at this point I know what I need to roll to hit and roll with all models engaged.

 

I see no place that tells me to do otherwise and I can complete that entire assault to its conclusion so there is no need for me to look back in the index to find a rule that addresses an impasse I do not have.

 

Grammar is basis of reading the English language. The inability of the Gamesworkshop writers to grasp the concepts of elementary grammar is not an excuse to change how RAW is used. Rewording a sentence without changing its meaning is still a RAW, it is making a clarification not interoperating it in a different way.

 

Following your train of thought. Nowhere does it say in Codex: Chaos Daemons does it say that my Daemonettes do cannot use Grey Knight Force Weapons. Since there is not a rule explicitly disallowing me picking wargear from whatever codices I wish too, I am allowed to do so.

[greatcrusade08]

LOL! Thanks for proving my point about cherry picking words to prove ones point as greatcrusade08 choose to do. You can prove most things by cherry picking the rules and applying them out of context.

 

I didnt cherry pick words merely used the ones you put forward. If your going to make an argument perhaps you should have used proper wording, my only mistake was presuming you had done so..

BTW i was agreeing with most of what you said, only going on to further add that since it is an assault that normal assault rules apply except where special rules are used.

I also think its really cool how you deflect the 'blame' onto someone else to avoid admitting the fact you made a mistake.. nice one mate :)

 

To stop and refer to another section of the book at this point (when you are not told to) is just your RAI. You don’t get to go back and forth as you see fit.

Really, this would only be true if you had a quotable rule to back this up.. its not uncommon to have to refer to different areas of the rulebook from time to time.

And how is that RAI? (read as intended) theres really no such thing unless you know who wrote the rules?

 

As i said assaulting vehicles is an assault; any rules that the "assaulting a vehicle" section doesnt cover would have to be standard assault rules.

 

Gc08

 

edit: i like Ntins argument

[chapter master 454]

I personally always believed int was used, kraks first then power fists however this rarely ever applies as my metagame area just roll for all the weapons at the same time however I believe the krak grenades would go first (being quicker to clamp on and stop the tank from moving) then the powerfist (who would move up on the easy target and tear it open). I believe Int is used (because that power fist guy doesn't all of a sudden find out his power fist weighs nothing not to mention he's got to get a grip and then crush) however I believe this discussion will carry on like vulkans special rule debate did.

[pingo]

Vehicles don't have WS -, I -, or A -. Those characteristics do not exist for them at all and are irrelevant.

 

Rulebook page 63, “As the vehicle has no WS”.

Rulebook page 7, “Some creatures have been given a ‘0’ for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a ‘-‘).”

 

 

If vehicles did not have WS -, I-, or A- it would cause problems as the characteristics would be unrepresented. It establishes a basis on how these model types interact with other models in the assault phase. Without such a clause an argument that a rhino has A: 30 would be as valid as A: 0.

 

As you said: the rulebook says 'the vehicle has no WS'. Not WS 0. Not WS -. Rather, no WS at all. P. 56 lays out what characteristics vehicles have. Walkers are the exception of course.

 

A vehicle is also not a creature either.

 

You don't need WS for a vehicle as they don't fight in close combat. They don't need initiative or attacks for the same reason.