PDA

View Full Version : Driving over wrecked vehicles



Spartan
08-15-2009, 12:19 AM
Hi all,

newbie question incoming: When a vehicle gets wrecked it becomes terrain counting as both difficult and dangerous (BRB p. 62).

I had me a game against an experienced player (IG vs IG - yes I know...) and blew up his LRD. He then proceeded to drive over the wrecked LRD with a chimera to reach the objective on the other side to contest it.

Now I felt that this was a bit over the top, but before I could gather my thoughts he had moved the tank and rolled for immobilization. It kind of got left there - a draw.

What do you guys think of this? Should it be allowed? There was no discussing this option before the game started as no-one saw it coming...

Vince
08-15-2009, 03:52 AM
Why do you think it is not allowed?

Aldramelech
08-15-2009, 04:08 AM
And if he failed the roll it wouldn't have worked out for him. Fair enough I say.

TSINI
08-15-2009, 05:09 AM
i can see where you're coming from

what you're saying is, "How Wrecked is a vehicle chassis" is it still a smouldering hunk of metal with the same size and shape of a vehicle, if so, tanks can't normally drive over such large terrain and therefore shouldnt be able to

or is the wrecked vehicle now just a flat pile of metal shards on the ground, allowing vehicles and troops to move over it.

i'd say simply because of the True LOS rules that a tank, when destoyed - Wrecked, is still the same size and shape of a tank for shooting/cover purposes because you've left it in place on the table.

reading over pages 61 and 62 of the brb, i'm pretty sure that the "Destroyed - Wrecked and Destroyed - Explodes" results are written such that a wreck, is still a vehicle sized piece of terrain that cannot be driven over by a tank, (you'd be pretty peeved if someone tried to drive a tank over a large generator piece of terrain about the same size of a tank) and the explodes result reduces the tank to a crater - hence other vehicles can now drive through the difficult terrain.

Dan-e
08-15-2009, 06:33 AM
I see it as possible because i break it down like this

If the tank was still working, you wouldn't drive over it because well it is functioning still, if its an enemy tank that still function, well this is called ramming and the rules are set up for it.

If its not functional then how would it be any different then a tank going over a steep hill or ruins in a destroyed building? you see common images of tanks driving over cars in real life, i am sure its a common sight in 40k for tanks to drive over tanks because well that is just more EPIC and anything that makes the game more EPIC is ok by my standards.


And if he failed the roll it wouldn't have worked out for him. Fair enough I say.

I would love to see a stack of a tank immobilized onto of a wreaked tank in a Battle Report image : ] And now that I think about it, this is what orks would call a Bastion lol, if i had the money i would so make a Ork Bastion of two tanks stacked on top of each other : ]

Jwolf
08-15-2009, 08:02 AM
And if he failed the roll it wouldn't have worked out for him. Fair enough I say.

Agreed. It's even crazier when one drives over a wrecked Titan, but still legal. Try thinking of the wrecked vehicle as more representing some portion of the vehicle and a lot of smoke and fire.

TSINI
08-15-2009, 08:23 AM
i'm still convinced that a wrecked vehicle blocks movement as a functioning vehicle would. yes there is ramming, but ramming only results in a damage result, it doesnt allow a tank to roll over another vehicle

Ramming a wrecked vehicle just has no effect on the wreckage

tanks can't drive over other tanks, they can scale cars because cars are small and squishy compared to the armoured behemoth that is a tank.

troops could treat the wreckage as dangerous terrain because its a smouldering pile of burning sharp and possibly melting metal.

Aldramelech
08-15-2009, 09:03 AM
Its an odd one, Perhaps the best way to think of it is as area terrain. If you pass the test the wreck has been blown into several large pieces and your tank bashes them aside. If you fail the test the wreck was more substantial then your driver thought and the resulting collision immobilizes your tank. You need a bit of imagination to play this game sometimes:)

TheKingElessar
08-15-2009, 09:11 AM
Its an odd one, Perhaps the best way to think of it is as area terrain. If you past the test the wreck has been blown into several large pieces and your tank bashes them aside. If you fail the test the wreck was more substantial then your driver thought and the resulting collision immobilizes your tank. You need a bit of imagination to play this game sometimes:)

QFT.

Of course you can drive through. Ever seen a Zombie film? If a car can go through an intact car, a tank can through a broken tank.

Lord Victor
08-15-2009, 10:01 AM
I agree with Aldramelech. One must remember this game is supposed to represent a real battle, some imagination is needed to make the rules fit with the story. Perhaps the tank is not driving practically verticallly over the broken tank, but instead on a successful dangerous terrain test it is simply bashing right through it. Imagining the broken tank being rolled over and pushed aside by moving tank screeching medal and all that.

TSINI
08-15-2009, 10:05 AM
i guess it depends what your interpretations of the word Wrecked is,

im sure the reason theres a Wrecked, and an Explode result is to represent how tanks in particular are destroyed:

wrecked - represents the tank simply being broken, intact but broken, the crew killed, or the internal workings scrambled beyond repair

Explodes - represents the vehicle exploding into pieces, removing the structure of the vehicle


i'm pretty sure there is a reason for keeping the wrecked vehicle in place for gameplay reasons, it reverts to being a large piece of scenery. and i for one wouldnt be happy for vehicles to drive over them simply because its a bunker sized piece of terrain, and you wouldnt be happy for tanks to roll over bunkers, would you?


i mean you have to remember that blowing up tanks has also been used for tactical advantage. creating massive roadblocks in cities using the enemies tanks has been used in the past. think saving private ryan when they use the sticky bombs to stop the armoured column moving through

Spartan
08-15-2009, 11:34 AM
Thank you all for your thoughts! :)

What I was thinking to myself was that a LRD is quite tall for a Chimera to drive over. The relation to cars doesn`t apply here, IMHO, as they`re too small.

The fact that the wrecked vehicle also gives cover as it is on the table should also suggest that it`s not moved aside, blown away, rolled over aso. It stays there, blocking LOS and thereby provide cover as usual. (Although I like the blueprint on how to make an Ork bastion, lol).

I have seen plenty pictures of burned out tanks from the gulf war. A lot look whole but ruined, burned out...

I would think that if you can drive over a vehicle size LRBT, one should be able to drive over other pieces of terrain of the same height as well, no?

Driving over Titans? Wouldn`t that imply that a vehicle can drive over any terrain, taking away the concept of impassable terrain for vehicles?

And, what will make the difference between driving over a wrecked vehicle and an operational one? For instance an immobilized enemy vehicle? It should be possible.

I`m all for using imagination and cool epic moments! I`m just trying to figure out what is the norm, using the ruleset. What is allowed in tournaments? Any experience?

Nabterayl
08-15-2009, 11:46 AM
i guess it depends what your interpretations of the word Wrecked is,

im sure the reason theres a Wrecked, and an Explode result is to represent how tanks in particular are destroyed:

wrecked - represents the tank simply being broken, intact but broken, the crew killed, or the internal workings scrambled beyond repair

Explodes - represents the vehicle exploding into pieces, removing the structure of the vehicle


i'm pretty sure there is a reason for keeping the wrecked vehicle in place for gameplay reasons, it reverts to being a large piece of scenery. and i for one wouldnt be happy for vehicles to drive over them simply because its a bunker sized piece of terrain, and you wouldnt be happy for tanks to roll over bunkers, would you?


i mean you have to remember that blowing up tanks has also been used for tactical advantage. creating massive roadblocks in cities using the enemies tanks has been used in the past. think saving private ryan when they use the sticky bombs to stop the armoured column moving through

Tsini,

All that is true, but page 62 still says:


WRECKS
Wrecked vehicles are left on the table and effectively become a piece of terrain, counting as both difficult and dangerous terrain, and providing cover. Players must clearly mark that a vehicle has been wrecked in any way they consider suitable. For example, they can turn the vehicle or just its turret upside down (and not sideways to gain extra cover!), place a marker or cotton wool on it to represent smoke and flames, and so on.

As page 13 makes clear, difficult terrain can always be moved through:


TERRAIN TYPES
Terrain provides useful cover from enemy fire, but can also impede the movement of your units. Troops can be slowed by pushing through or climbing over barriers and obstructions. There are three general classes of terrain: clear, difficult and impassable.

*Clear terrain can be moved across without any penalty, and generally covers most of the battlefield.
*Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move through it, and can sometimes be dangerous to models passing through it.
*Impassable terrain cannot be moved across or into.

So you're quite correct that wrecks turn into scenery, but the rulebook is explicit that they turn into the type of scenery that can be moved through (albeit it is dangerous to do so).

As a historical/fluff/simulation matter, you're right to think of using wrecked vehicles as roadblocks, and 40K doesn't stick very closely to the "real world" in this matter. But at least a wrecked vehicle is still an obstacle to other vehicles even in 40K - if you wrecked a vehicle at the head of a column, other vehicles driving through it would need to take a Dangerous Terrain test, running the risk of becoming Immobilized and thus further impeding the movement of the vehicles behind them.


I would think that if you can drive over a vehicle size LRBT, one should be able to drive over other pieces of terrain of the same height as well, no?

That's really something for you and your opponent to decide. Most players treat vertical terrain of a certain height as Impassable, but there's nothing stopping you from declaring it Difficult before the game begins. If you want to use the wrecked rules as an argument for why that should be so, go ahead. Personally, I like to imagine that a Wrecked vehicle is sufficiently messed up that other vehicles can drive straight through it, putting their drive systems at risk from jagged pieces of hull and secondary explosions.


Driving over Titans? Wouldn`t that imply that a vehicle can drive over any terrain, taking away the concept of impassable terrain for vehicles?
If you take the reality of the tabletop to mean that the reality of the battlefield is that the "wrecked" Titan is still the size of a standing Titan, sure. But I don't think the fluff supports that, so like Jwolf I prefer to imagine that very large wrecked vehicles are actually toppled over, partially intact, or whatever, and the size of the standing model represents some other visual impairment, such as a thick oily column of smoke.


And, what will make the difference between driving over a wrecked vehicle and an operational one? For instance an immobilized enemy vehicle? It should be possible.
If an enemy vehicle is immobilized it can still be Rammed, per page 69. Note that this is an improvement over 4th edition, where vehicles could shove other, smaller vehicles aside as long as they were self-mobile, but the instant a vehicle became Immobilized it was an immovable object - an Immobilized war buggy couldn't be moved aside even by a Land Raider.

Spartan
08-15-2009, 12:12 PM
I`m persuaded by the argument that wrecks become both difficult and dangerous terrain which in turn can be driven over. Thank you!

Hmmm, I just got the feeling of being a rules lawyer on this matter... I don`t even have a degree... :(

Aldramelech
08-15-2009, 01:24 PM
I`m persuaded by the argument that wrecks become both difficult and dangerous terrain which in turn can be driven over. Thank you!

Hmmm, I just got the feeling of being a rules lawyer on this matter... I don`t even have a degree... :(

No mate, its a fair and sensible question.

Denzark
08-15-2009, 01:34 PM
It looks like RAW that it is legal. But again I would be surprised if this was RAI - the explosion on a 6 would leave enough pieces to drive through but not recked it's just burnt out. What next, people driving tanks up vertical walls of area terrain buildings just because they passed a difficult terrain test?

Nabterayl
08-15-2009, 01:40 PM
If it wasn't RAI, why wouldn't they just say that wrecks become Impassable terrain? That's simple enough.

Denzark
08-15-2009, 01:41 PM
because they always have a few loopholes in. I've yet to see an opinion the game is 100% balanced.

Nabterayl
08-15-2009, 01:50 PM
Well, fair enough. There's nothing stopping you from declaring wrecks Impassable to vehicles, or just plain Impassable to everything, if you think that makes for a better game.

Aldramelech
08-15-2009, 02:14 PM
It looks like RAW that it is legal. But again I would be surprised if this was RAI - the explosion on a 6 would leave enough pieces to drive through but not recked it's just burnt out. What next, people driving tanks up vertical walls of area terrain buildings just because they passed a difficult terrain test?

It is perfectly possible for a tank to push a wrecked (largely intact) tank out of the way.

I do have some real world experiance of this;)

TSINI
08-15-2009, 06:51 PM
Nabterayl
your argument is very persuasive in that yes, it is in fact correct. the rules do state that you can move through difficult and dangerous terrain, and it would have been designated impassible if it was meant to be, cheers for the clarification.

i personally won't be moving my tanks through wrecked vehicles though, and i think it will be added to the house rules for my gaming group lol :D i think it would be much more fun to do a kind of ramming test, and if passed, the tank can push through. [on this train of thought, i'd also add, if the wrecked vehicle cannot be moved up to 3" in such a way to let the players vehicle through, then it remains impassible to vehicles (dangerous to infantry) that way it will become tactically advantageous to target vehicles in alleyways]

Dezartfox
08-15-2009, 07:17 PM
In 4th edition *I THINK* there was a rule that if your armour was lower than the enemies wrecked vehicle you couldn't move over it, they seem to have taken that out of 5th edition.

But yup, as the rules state you can go onto it.

Jwolf
08-15-2009, 09:00 PM
In 4th edition *I THINK* there was a rule that if your armour was lower than the enemies wrecked vehicle you couldn't move over it, they seem to have taken that out of 5th edition.

But yup, as the rules state you can go onto it.

You are remembering correctly, and that is likely where the confusion arises (for those who are confused, that is).

Aldramelech
08-16-2009, 12:59 AM
That sounds like a fairly sensible rule. I can see a Land Raider pushing a Chimera out of the way but maybe not the other way round.

Denzark
08-16-2009, 01:53 AM
It is perfectly possible for a tank to push a wrecked (largely intact) tank out of the way.

I do have some real world experiance of this;)

Really? Well you might be the top REME-wallah ASM but I doubt you'll have seen a chally 2 drive up and over a BMP 2 that it sabot-ed.

Aldramelech
08-16-2009, 10:23 AM
Really? Well you might be the top REME-wallah ASM but I doubt you'll have seen a chally 2 drive up and over a BMP 2 that it sabot-ed.

Why the hell would you waste an APFSDS on a BMP2?:p

BlueRonin
08-16-2009, 10:55 AM
Zipperheads...

Denzark
08-16-2009, 02:00 PM
Why the hell would you waste an APFSDS on a BMP2?:p

Shhits and giggles? Because you're an unrepentant psycho? Cos thats what the loader had laid on with?

Knew a chally 1 driver who said his tank engaged a BMP1 with sabot in Gulf 1, just as the troops were de-bussing. He would only describe it as 'messy'.;)

Aldramelech
08-16-2009, 02:33 PM
Shhits and giggles? Because you're an unrepentant psycho? Cos thats what the loader had laid on with?

Knew a chally 1 driver who said his tank engaged a BMP1 with sabot in Gulf 1, just as the troops were de-bussing. He would only describe it as 'messy'.;)

Unpleasant;)

EmperorEternalXIX
08-20-2009, 05:48 PM
I always imagine it as the vehicle smashing through the wreckage.

Rules-wise, this is perfectly legal, just a little weird looking.

grimm
08-21-2009, 03:47 PM
because they always have a few loopholes in. I've yet to see an opinion the game is 100% balanced.

Chess.

Denzark
08-21-2009, 05:07 PM
Chess.

Yes thanks for this but as you'll see I did not state I could not come up with knowledge of any balanced game at all - I said i have yet to see an opinion the game is 100% balanced. 'The Game' I was refering to is the one referred to in the title of this lounge - to whit, W40K.

Perchance, I might respectfully opine a village somewhere is keenly feeling the loss of it's idiot mayhap?

DevilUknow
08-21-2009, 05:10 PM
Chess.

Mirror matches don't count.

TSINI
08-21-2009, 05:43 PM
I always imagine it as the vehicle smashing through the wreckage.

Rules-wise, this is perfectly legal, just a little weird looking.


this is fine, but it depends on your interpretation of Wrecked. wrecked explosion, would leave debris and stuff around, that the other tanks could drive through. but just simply wrecked, in my minds eye that anything from abandoned crew, to technical failures, dead crew, minced inner workings. but without a hull-tearing explosion, i'd assume the tank was still whole and intact, just not working. so driving through it becomes nigh on impossible because its a solid tank (unless its a little car or ork buggy)

but as has been said before, this is all a conversation in vain as the rules have been written so its all legal :(

Nabterayl
08-21-2009, 06:37 PM
but just simply wrecked, in my minds eye that anything from abandoned crew, to technical failures, dead crew, minced inner workings. but without a hull-tearing explosion, i'd assume the tank was still whole and intact, just not working.

Don't know if it will make you feel better, but here's how I justify this to myself:

I hear you that "wrecked," by itself, could mean anything. On the other hand, when was the last time an AFV exploded in the way that 40K vehicles explode? Plenty of AFVs have suffered explosions, but that usually means "something in the vehicle exploded," with perhaps the added meaning of, "something in the vehicle caught fire." It almost never means "the vehicle is no longer there."

In 40K, that is exactly what "explodes" means, as you yourself have noted. Not "there is a hole in the hull," or even "the hull is no longer structurally sound." A 40K result of "exploded" seems to mean "there is no more vehicle any more." This all fuels my personal belief that 40K vehicles are simply a lot more fragile, relative to the weapons that are being used to attack them, than ... well, than just about any AFVs that we could draw analogies to from real life. And that in turn fuels my personal justification that "wrecked" is likely a lot more extreme than even a real-world "explosion."

EmperorEternalXIX
08-24-2009, 03:45 AM
Duly noted, Nabterayl. In a universe where one of the "weakest" weapons shoots self-propelled missiles the size of Coke cans, I generally err on the side of the spectacularly destructive when it comes to fluff justification or imagery...hehe.

That being said it isn't at all an alien concept that, even if the vehicle was still fully intact, the moving vehicle simply smashes it out of the way or rolls through it's twisted wreckage.