Topic: Hitting Immobilized Vehicles in an Assault

[thebetter1]

Actually, thats not correct. (It may even be the intent, but per RAW, its not correct).

The rule, as you correctly identify, makes a statement of the form:

1) If P then Q

From this, however, you have concluded that:

1) If P then Q
2) Not P
3) Therefore, not Q

However, this does not follow.  Counter example:

1) If it is raining, the game is called off
2) It is not raining
3) Therefore, the game is not called off

But there could be other things that will also mean the game is called off- if it is snowing, perhaps. So that reasoning is incorrect.

In the same way, even if you do not roll 4+, there could be other things that will also mean the vehicle is hit.

This reasoning has flaws as well.  We do not automatically assume that all events start in the "off" position and are switched on as soon as one thing says so.  My understanding of the rules is that when they say an event could occur, such as a close combat attack on a vehicle, it is put in some intermediate state between occurring and not occurring.  The game cannot play on until it is determined whether the event occurs.  Assuming a die roll of less than 4, the table says that it occurs, and does not.  Stating that an event does not occur is a valid outcome, not just some neutral thing that can be overwritten by another statement that says it does occur.

For example, I bet you would be pretty mad if your friend would tell you that a game did not get called off, so you go to the field and find it covered with snow and see a sign saying that the game was canceled due to snow.  The game was not called off due to rain.  Stating that the game was not called off IS a real statement with meaning that is not simply beaten by a statement to the contrary.  Why should a positive statement take precedence over a negative one, anyways?

[Guildmage Aech]

This reasoning has flaws as well.  We do not automatically assume that all events start in the "off" position and are switched on as soon as one thing says so.

There are no flaws, and none of the contions are assumed to be anything. Its a precise explaination of logic.
Hes showing that if something only happens when something else does, it doesn't mean you can assume that it ALWAYS happens when something else does.

Thats why in close combat models only make close combat attacks, but close combat attacks aren't always made in close combat.

For example, I bet you would be pretty mad if your friend would tell you that a game did not get called off, so you go to the field and find it covered with snow and see a sign saying that the game was canceled due to snow.  The game was not called off due to rain.  Stating that the game was not called off IS a real statement with meaning that is not simply beaten by a statement to the contrary.  Why should a positive statement take precedence over a negative one, anyways?

But thats that point, in the example presenting you don't ask if the game is off or not. Its demonstrating that asking if its raining or not isn't proof that the game is on or not. The whole point hes making is that you can't say, "Is it raining? No, then game on!" because it might be snowing.

[thebetter1]

You still have yet to describe why one statement causing an event should ALWAYS overrule any number of statements specifically saying it doesn't occur.  There is no reason to assume that this kind of logic applies in this case.  In cases where it does, you would see a keyword like "any," which would specifically show that only one of the conditions has to be met, but not everything in life is an OR.

Hes showing that if something only happens when something else does, it doesn't mean you can assume that it ALWAYS happens when something else does.

Thats why in close combat models only make close combat attacks, but close combat attacks aren't always made in close combat.

This logic doesn't really lead to that statement.  Are you saying that close combat only happens when models are making close combat attacks but may not occur, or are you saying that close combat attacks only occur in close combat but may not?  Neither of these make sense.

[Changeyname]

the table in the BRB for hitting vehicles is very simple

has the tank moved at speed x? then use the roll of the dice next to that speed only to see if you can hit it

is the tank immobilised? then you hit it automatically

because of these tenses the immobilised will overrule the speed moved as you only ever apply one condition from the table, even if it moved previously if it is now immobilised that is the one you use

all the speed brackets have a past tense (previous turn) and hence apply to the tank having moved at that speed
the immobilised condition has a present tense (is immobilised) and hence overrides the speed conditions if it that is the current state of the vehicle

also as pointed out previously, this can happen mid phase, so a squad can find itself hitting a vehicle on a 4+ with its models at (for sake of example) Initiative 4, then once those hits have been worked out models at I1 (using a P-Fist) are automatically hitting it because it is now immobilised whereas before that Initiative step is wasnt

[2quiet]

...statements specifically saying it doesn't occur.

You have yet to provide any such statement. Your argument in your last post would be quite correct if the rule stated "vehicles that have moved x distance are hit on a roll of 4+ and are not hit on a roll of less than 4+". (Which would be two separate statements).

Once again:

1) If P then Q

and

1) If not P, then not Q

are two different claims; do not mean the same thing; and can not be interchanged. The second also does not follow on from the first.

Unless you can present a relevant rule that takes the form of the later claim, there is no issue of "one statement causing an event" even competing with "another specifically saying it doesn't occur", because the later doesn't exist.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

actually i retract my previous statement.  it is quite clear in that if a vehicle is immobilzed or didnt move last turn then it is hit automatically.  2quiet... i think you need to come out with more than some simple math interpretation.

[Numinak]

There is a simple answer to all this:

All attacks happen at the same time in that particular phase. It doesn't matter that the powerclaw/fist/meltabomb goes last due to initiative, or that someone before him got an immobilized result. The combat happens all at the same time, so immobilized is not a result you count for that particular combat.

Easy, Yesno?

[NecronCell2131]

I can see a discrepancy if this all occurred in one phase such as if marines hit the moving rhino and immobilized it then the powerfist attacked (it would still be screeching to a halt so 4+). If it was immobilised in the shooting phase then assaulted it would be a hit automatically.

As again this probably wont be good enough for the rules lawyers because they want GW to say it in the book to use common sense.
I can understand different interpretation in rules but little things like can marines immobilising the vehicle so your powerfist can get in a clear shot makes me wonder who really really wants to win in this situation.

Also to note I'm not attacking anyone just that GW cant possible put every situation into the book otherwise it would take three people to lift it. From that point on use what judgement is decided by the group at the start of the group. If they like the idea of a vehicle that keeps sliding along from one phase to another or have it come to a stop when the assault phase rolls around would be something you have to decide with your own group or opponent.

[Gentleman Fate]

The immobilized result overrides all. The problem here is really down to the question:
Is initiative used for attacking vehicles that lack initiative value?

Answer 1:
No, as this is a special form of combat in which there is no wait for initiative.

Answer 2:
Yes, as it is an assault and thus assault rules apply.

My vote is for option two, as the rules explanation notes changes in the normal rules of an assault. A change in the working of Initiative would have likely been noted.

[g3nius_monkey]

All the attacks in a combat aren't necessarily resolved at the same time.

Recall that the attackers with higher initiative get their attacks resolved first, meaning a group of high initiative DE Warriors can wipe out a group of low initiative Tau Fire Warriors before they land a single attack. Therefore you have to honor the process when determining results against vehicles.

The immobilized result means that the vehicle is automatically hit by any attack, because the context given in the book is present, "vehicle that IS immobilized..." If a higher initiative model manages to immobilize a vehicle during its initiative step, then the lower initiative models get the bonus.

Thats where I'm throwing my hat, anyway.

[Seattledv8]

I agree g3nius_monkey.
Nothing in the rules say that all assaults on a vehicle happen at the same time, we must follow initiative order.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

i would like someone to try and point out though where it says that assaulting a vehicle doesn't require IN to be used

[2quiet]

2quiet... i think you need to come out with more than some simple math interpretation.

I took that such other points had already been presented, and felt that there was no real reason for me to repeat them. I only posted in defence of a point Hymril made. Basically, I agree with Hymril.

Oh, and its not actually a math interpretation, its "practical reasoning of language", according to my uni schedule. Blah.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

right... Well, this is done then.

*click*