First Turn Charge On A Vehicle

[Ashe Darke]

This came up recently and thinking about it we came to the ridiculous conclusion that a vehicle cannot be hit in the first turn in combat.

 

To get an automatic hit it needs to be immobile or not have moved in it's previous turn. Seen as there hasn't been a previous turn there is no criteria/ruling for hitting a vehicle that hasn't had a previous turn and the others all say previous turn as well. Those 3 are the only ways one can hit a tank in combat and this situation falls outside of that.

 

We thought it was quite funny.

[greatcrusade08]

To get an automatic hit it needs to be immobile or not have moved in it's previous turn. Seen as there hasn't been a previous turn there is no criteria/ruling for hitting a vehicle that hasn't had a previous turn and the others all say previous turn as well. Those 3 are the only ways one can hit a tank in combat and this situation falls outside of that.

 

Actually your logic is flawed. Since we know it is possible to hit a tank in combat, plus we are given a "to hit" value based on the previous movemment of the vehicle.

4+ normal speed, 6+ fast speed.

 

Sure it says hasnt moved in its previous turn, but that can also be read as:

There hasnt been a previous turn, therefore the vehicle cannot have moved and all hits are automatic.

 

You cant just rule that a combat cant happen, you need an actual rulebook rule for this.

[Ashe Darke]

So because something isn't covered you just use something similar? That isn't how the rules work, not if you're following them properly. You say I need a rulebook rule to say I can't do something, so I can do anything I want provided I can't find a rule to say I can't?

 

Well the rule book says this.

 

Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn - Automatic hit.

 

Going on RAW. Has it moved in its previous turn? Answer, no. You don't fulfil the criteria. And sure you could say well it could be taken as what you said but it's pretty clear, not really much room for wiggle there. I'm on about taking the wording very literally by the way.

[stinkenheim]

if someone tried that on me they would get hurt :D

its pretty obvious that as it hasn't moved it would be auto hit, theres no point reading that much into it as all it wil do is cause arguements in what is meant to be a hobby played for fun

[Grey Mage]

Can you prove it moved in the previous turn? Can you show that it moved at combat speed or cruising speed or flat out even?

 

Because if not, it didnt move... because there was no movement to be done.

 

It sucks, as an eldar player I extremely dislike it, but thats how it goes.

[greatcrusade08]

@grey mage if you dont get first turn and your worried about it then you could always put vehicles in reserve.

 

@Ashe Darke: Using the wording of the rules to try to defeat the spirit of the rules is why GW released a big heavy rulebook.. if you get my meaning?

Its a pretty obvious thing to resolve.. have the vehicles moved or did they remain stationary? one could argue tht scout moves could count as movement, but im not sure on that one either.

Just because there wasnt a previous turn doesnt mean the vehicle moved.. as i said before the rulebook is clear on the figures used:

Normal speed = 4+

Fast speed = 6+

Stationary = auto hit.

 

it also goes onto say that immobilised vehicles, even those that moved previously recieve auto hits.. its fairly obvious to most people that stationary vehicles are sitting ducks

[Ntin]

Interesting argument on both sides but this seems to be one of those things where there is no correct answer as it is a case not covered by the rules.

[greatcrusade08]

Interesting argument on both sides but this seems to be one of those things where there is no correct answer as it is a case not covered by the rules.

 

perhaps its not covered in explicit detail, but how many rules are? it makes no sense to simply deny the assault phase all together when the only logical answer is to use auto hits (given the above mentioned set figures for attacking vehicles in CC)

[Grey Mage]

Oi, fair enough... and a vehicle in reserves is holey protected from enemy firepower... and holey random when it comes out. I just tend to play on boards with a proper amount of terrain and pray.

 

My point is though, even if it stinks its fair accross the board. The vehicle has yet to move, thus its previous history is 'stationairy" and will be hit like any stationairy vehicle would- automatically.

[Ntin]

perhaps its not covered in explicit detail, but how many rules are? it makes no sense to simply deny the assault phase all together when the only logical answer is to use auto hits (given the above mentioned set figures for attacking vehicles in CC)

 

That is sort of the fundamental problem the way Games-Workshop products are written they are not play tested to the extent that they should be and the usage overly ornate language which makes sentences ambiguous. For the player anything that is not covered in detail requires errata to correct and would have to be a R.A.I. agreement as nothing R.A.W. can be derived.

[greatcrusade08]

i disagree, there is enough written about the rules to show that stationary vehicles are auto hit.. this is not one of those occasions where you roll off if you cant decide which opinion has precidence.

IMO the counter argument is complete rules lawyering at its worst

[Ntin]

There is enough there for you to build something for R.A.I. and I do not think anyone would disagree with on the first turn vehicles count as staying still if there was a previous turn. The rule as it is written is broken or incomplete you cannot argue R.A.W. however you precede with it would be a house rule, it is not possible to not house rule it.

[greatcrusade08]

Congrats Ntin youve managed to turn a simple rules discussion into an uneccessary look into the differences between RAw and RAI.

 

to be honest both are complete crap, RAI can never be used unless you wrote the damned rules and RAW may aswell get thrown out of the wndow.

rulebooks arent written by lawyers they are written by gamers..

 

Whilst i agree that some rules can have two interpreatations, this is not one of them.. the only options in this case are auto hits or you ignore close combat..

It doesnt require a house rule or much of a discussion with your opponents.. there is no basis in the rules for ignoring a players assault options.

 

edit: i apologise if this seems confrontational, it was not my intention

[Grey Mage]

Simple question:

 

Has the vehicle moved since you put it on the table?

 

Answer: No.

 

Therefore, it cannot have been anything but stationairy due to the simple fact that it has not moved.

 

Just because it cant have moved is no excuse.

[waaanial00]

This came up recently and thinking about it we came to the ridiculous conclusion that a vehicle cannot be hit in the first turn in combat.

 

We thought it was quite funny.

 

Ridiculous conclusion highlighted because that is what happens when you look at rules too much to this point. Quite funny highlighted because whilst this is a casual thought process and observation it will ruin someones game because a rules lawyer style player is going to latch onto this argument and run with it, pissing off his/her opponent and ruining what could be a very good game.

 

For me I think its pretty clear that you can hit a vehicle in the first turn of combat because no movement preceeding it means it has not moved, simply because there is no evidence to the contrary. I also dont believe that someone failed to cover this in the rules because they intended someone to claim you cannot hit a vehicle on first turn. Using your same logic you could claim that you would get a 4+ cover save for skimmers because they might have moved at max speed in the previous turn (that doesnt exist).

 

This type of thinking is what makes the odd 1/20 games so goddamn aweful and why Tournaments are thought so poorly of. Yes it is not explicitly covered in the rulebook, still neither is (to my knowledge) what happens when you charge an infantry unit which appears to be facing the other way. Or where you draw line of sight from with a model with no eyes.

 

This just seems to be an excuse to find potential flaws in the rules, if anyone attempted to use this line of reasoning in my club/tournament and I was forced to make up a house rule to fix what is such an obvious situation then they would be asked to not come back or given a yellow card for obviously wasting time and delaying the game.

 

Argue RAI vs RAW all you want, this is just stupid.

 

Wan

[greatcrusade08]

Argue RAI vs RAW all you want, this is just stupid.

 

I believe this one sentence makes more sense than all of my combined arguments thus far

[Thantoes]

Bearing in mind that I agree 100% with GC08 and the autohit rule on the first turn (as much as it seriously sucks) I can kinda/sorta see the other side of the argument.

 

In a game that relies soley on turns to progress through the game, what do you do when a rule specifically references a turn that doesnt exist i.e. "the previous turn" ?

 

If I wanted to be obnoxious I would deploy my vehicle over 6 inches from the board edge. I could then point out that since all units enter via the board edge "How did it get to its current location?" It didnt fly or appear via pixie dust, it must have moved there. That is sound Rules Lawyer Logic right there <_<

 

If it was up to me, I would have written the rule that on the first turn you need a 4+ to hit a vehicle. There is nothing worse than carefully unpacking your vehicles and then putting them back in the case 2 minutes later because half your motor pool just dissolved on the first turn before you had a chance to do anything

[Spacefrisian]

The statement a vehicle hasn't moved before the 1st turn seems a little bit strange. How did it get on the table in the 1st place.

 

 

But joking aside, you would hit it automaticly. Though their are only a view units able to (Shrike, Dreadnought in Lucius Pod, Vanguard)

[ArmouredWing]

The statement a vehicle hasn't moved before the 1st turn seems a little bit strange. How did it get on the table in the 1st place.

 

 

But joking aside, you would hit it automaticly. Though their are only a view units able to (Shrike, Dreadnought in Lucius Pod, Vanguard)

..and possibly an Eversor. And for the count I'm with the auto hit party, it's abundantly clear that apart from scout moves, etc, turn 1 is the first turn that things can actually move on the table.

[Brother-Chaplain Gaius]

it's an automatic hit. plain and simple

[Ashe Darke]

Hah, look at what happened. This thread was merely supposed to be an observation we made, one that made us laugh.

 

It came from someone making a scout move but leaving themselves within charge range of some bikes. The question came up of whether it was 6s or auto-hit. It didn't move in it's previous, it's a scout, it's not like the army moved up and then they shot off. They were always in front of the rest so I felt the same ruling for stationary vehicles should apply. This is where the OP came in.

[JamesI]

Since it moved as a scout move, I'd probably say to hit it based on how far it scouted. Since it did move.

 

Had there been no scout move, it would be auto-hit.

[Koremu]

Simple question:

 

Has the vehicle moved since you put it on the table?

 

Answer: No.

 

Therefore, it cannot have been anything but stationairy due to the simple fact that it has not moved.

 

Just because it cant have moved is no excuse.

Playing Devil's advocate here (I would play it as stationary...), but that's an entirely game-POV, rather than a realism POV.

 

I would make the argument that vehicles in the first turn would be much more likely to have "previously" moved at top speed (exceptions for dug-in). This is especially true for Rhinos which have been positioned half way up the board for Dawn of War. It's not like both sides line up and wait for the whistle to blow for the start of turn 1, is it?

[Commander Sasha]

I'm with Koremu: for gaming purposes, stationary, by fluff, they'd have been gunning in to battle, so flat out.

Scout moves should definitely be counted as moving though; if not, 'No, you can't have your turbo-covered save because there wasn't a round 0 for you to do your flashy wheelie stunts in'.

 

I'm adding this to my big list of House rules, and stating that vehicles count as stationary from the point that plastic touches table.

[rat of vengence]

There is enough there for you to build something for R.A.I. and I do not think anyone would disagree with on the first turn vehicles count as staying still if there was a previous turn. The rule as it is written is broken or incomplete you cannot argue R.A.W. however you precede with it would be a house rule, it is not possible to not house rule it.

Can you imagine the size of the rulebook if GW tried to take on every possible permutation of the rules?

Personally, I think they leave a fair amount of rules in the category of "Bleedin' Obvious" and a lot of the rest in "Common Sense". You would probably find this situation cross referenced to both.

 

Shame many don't seem to understand those two categories, it is a game of wardollies after all... :)

 

RoV