Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Nothing in the immobilized result says to lose a hull point as quoted above. Now typically you have to have something that causes a hull point in order to get to roll on that table, but without further there would be no hull points lost.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Remember, you lose a hull point not from the immobilised result, but from the penetrating hit, they are 2 different steps.

After you resolve a normal hit and you penetrate, you have 2 steps:
1) deduct 1 Hull Point
2) roll on the damage table.

When you roll a 5 on the table that is when you "suffer an immobilised result".

Yes, that is certainly one of the ways a vehicle can lose a hull point. You also lose one on glancing hits and for suffering immobilized results on the vehicle damage chart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Remember, you lose a hull point not from the immobilised result, but from the penetrating hit, they are 2 different steps.

After you resolve a normal hit and you penetrate, you have 2 steps:
1) deduct 1 Hull Point
2) roll on the damage table.

When you roll a 5 on the table that is when you "suffer an immobilised result".

And when you fail a dangerous terrain test you also suffer an immobilised result and lose a hull point.

BRB page 71 wrote:A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test is instantly Immobilised (see page 74).

Page 74 references the pen result.

I don't see a difference between the dangerous terrain test and the reference of "and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result"... meaning the Drop Pod instantly loses a hull point.

It has 3. 2 when it lands and becomes immobile, 1 if it lands in dangerous terrain and fails its test.

It would wreck. 3 at start, 2 on landing, 1 for failing DT test and another 1 since it's already immobilized. Wrecked.

I agree with this guy : )

I mean I'd hate to be a cheater and claim it doesn't lose the hull point...

The rules say "immobilized" like a result on the table, the FAQ says this costs a Hull point... its pretty clear...

Lets be honest...a drop pod slams into the ground... its gonna take some damage... the rules make sense here

Fragile wrote:
Nothing in the immobilized result says to lose a hull point as quoted above. Now typically you have to have something that causes a hull point in order to get to roll on that table, but without further there would be no hull points lost.

Look at the rules that have been quoted.
Drop Pods "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result."
Dangerous Terrain tests cause a vehicle to become instantly Immobilised.

Dangerous Terrain tests cause a hull point loss. There's no penetrating hit.

What happens when a vehicle suffers an immobilised damage result, according to the Dangerous Terrain ruling? You also suffer a HP loss.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Nothing in the immobilized result says to lose a hull point as quoted above. Now typically you have to have something that causes a hull point in order to get to roll on that table, but without further there would be no hull points lost.

Look at the rules that have been quoted.
Drop Pods "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result."
Dangerous Terrain tests cause a vehicle to become instantly Immobilised.

Dangerous Terrain tests cause a hull point loss. There's no penetrating hit.

What happens when a vehicle suffers an immobilised damage result, according to the Dangerous Terrain ruling? You also suffer a HP loss.

good summary of the rules!

I just think its hillarious if it lands in difficult and suffers a second... immobilized result wrecking...

 frgsinwntr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Nothing in the immobilized result says to lose a hull point as quoted above. Now typically you have to have something that causes a hull point in order to get to roll on that table, but without further there would be no hull points lost.

Look at the rules that have been quoted.
Drop Pods "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result."
Dangerous Terrain tests cause a vehicle to become instantly Immobilised.

Dangerous Terrain tests cause a hull point loss. There's no penetrating hit.

What happens when a vehicle suffers an immobilised damage result, according to the Dangerous Terrain ruling? You also suffer a HP loss.

good summary of the rules!

I just think its hillarious if it lands in difficult and suffers a second... immobilized result wrecking...

Well let's be real here, most drop pods are probably discarded anyway after they've hit the surface (going fluffy here! No rules precedents). Though I agree with you that it's a little ridiculous, I can see how it could happen. I mean, if your drop pod is crashing down into a ruin or lake or forest, there's a chance it's going to get damaged and just by the nature of what it is (and consider what it's carrying, that adds a lot of mass to them) it will be easily wrecked on landing. But the unit will still survive though.

 frgsinwntr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Nothing in the immobilized result says to lose a hull point as quoted above. Now typically you have to have something that causes a hull point in order to get to roll on that table, but without further there would be no hull points lost.

Look at the rules that have been quoted.
Drop Pods "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result."
Dangerous Terrain tests cause a vehicle to become instantly Immobilised.

Dangerous Terrain tests cause a hull point loss. There's no penetrating hit.

What happens when a vehicle suffers an immobilised damage result, according to the Dangerous Terrain ruling? You also suffer a HP loss.

good summary of the rules!

I just think its hillarious if it lands in difficult and suffers a second... immobilized result wrecking...

Orkian says "bring on the drop pod assaults"

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Nothing in the immobilized result says to lose a hull point as quoted above. Now typically you have to have something that causes a hull point in order to get to roll on that table, but without further there would be no hull points lost.

Look at the rules that have been quoted.
Drop Pods "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result."
Dangerous Terrain tests cause a vehicle to become instantly Immobilised.

Dangerous Terrain tests cause a hull point loss. There's no penetrating hit.

What happens when a vehicle suffers an immobilised damage result, according to the Dangerous Terrain ruling? You also suffer a HP loss.

Your trying to combine two rules into one. The Immobilized damage result is number 5 on the damage chart. You suffer all the results of #5. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your trying to say that all #5 Results follow the rules for a failed terrain test when the reverse is true.

To be correct in your intrepretation, that rule would have to say "Drop Pods count in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immoblizied damage result from a Dangerous Terrain test ."

Slim chance of being in dangerous terrain. dont they automatically avoid it?

davou wrote:
Slim chance of being in dangerous terrain. dont they automatically avoid it?

No, they avoid impassible terrain and being closer than 1" to an enemy unit.

And remember, all difficult terrain is dangerous for vehicles. So, really, it's not that slim of a chance for it to happen.

Doesn't "counts in all respects as a vehicle that's taken an immobilised result" mean it suffers the outcome of being immobilised i.e. cant move? Rather than counts as being shot at for the immobilised result to happen.

C'mon people are we really trying to say a drop pod takes damage on the turn it arrives? The vehicel counts as being imobilized as per the roll on the damage table. The result on the damage table says NOTHING about taking a hull point loss. Are you trying to say that if someone were to deepstrike a Basilisk Gun emplacement (IA books) it takes a hull point ding? Drop Pods have retro rockets that slow them down before impact (they are even modeld on the model) and are designed to hit the ground. I will give you that if I drop a pod into Difficult terrain and fail the test I would take a hull point ding but only if I fail the DT Test.

By this logic a unit with 4 Haywire grenades would automaticaly wreck any stationary vehicle they go up against!

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:Doesn't "counts in all respects as a vehicle that's taken an immobilised result" mean it suffers the outcome of being immobilised i.e. cant move? Rather than counts as being shot at for the immobilised result to happen.

Dooley wrote:C'mon people are we really trying to say a drop pod takes damage on the turn it arrives? The vehicel counts as being imobilized as per the roll on the damage table. The result on the damage table says NOTHING about taking a hull point loss. Are you trying to say that if someone were to deepstrike a Basilisk Gun emplacement (IA books) it takes a hull point ding? Drop Pods have retro rockets that slow them down before impact (they are even modeld on the model) and are designed to hit the ground. I will give you that if I drop a pod into Difficult terrain and fail the test I would take a hull point ding but only if I fail the DT Test.

By this logic a unit with 4 Haywire grenades would automaticaly wreck any stationary vehicle they go up against!

Dangerous terrain failure had the same wording. In fact, it had LESS wording in the rule book about it, and it was FAQ'd they took an HP loss.

No result on the vehicle damage chart says to take a hull point loss, except for immobilized vehicles suffering another immobilized result.

By what logic, regarding haywire? Yes, if haywire is used on a vehicle and they get their rolls of 2+ for glancing (or whatever it is) then they would be wrecked (assuming no pens). What is your point there? Gauss weaponry can do near the same thing.

I don't know anything about the basilisk gun, but gun emplacements are supposed to be T7 2W models, or similar. So, if IA decided to make their gun emplacement an immobile vehicle that suffers an immobilized result when it deep strikes then ya, it loses a hull point on landing.

Retro rockets...good for the drop pod, that keeps it from tearing itself apart with the added weight of a several ton walker or several tons of dudes and equipment onboard. That's not going to keep it from completely damaging itself.

We are not talking about a vehicle that has gone into dangerous terain we are talking about a vehicle that is designed to hit the ground and then become imobilized. All you do is take the Imobilized result. You have taken NO DAMAGE and have become stuck by design. A rhino has 3 hull points so does a Drop Pod.

Now if you were to take the risk of landing in difficult terrain you would take the -1 HP (if you failed ) because the FAQ tells you too. No were does it say that a DP takes a hull point ding.

Dooley wrote:
All you do is take the Imobilized result. You have taken NO DAMAGE and have become stuck by design.

Immobilized is a damage result. Thus it's placement on the "Vehicle Damage Table".

Dooley wrote:
We are not talking about a vehicle that has gone into dangerous terain we are talking about a vehicle that is designed to hit the ground and then become imobilized. All you do is take the Imobilized result. You have taken NO DAMAGE and have become stuck by design. A rhino has 3 hull points so does a Drop Pod.

Now if you were to take the risk of landing in difficult terrain you would take the -1 HP (if you failed ) because the FAQ tells you too. No were does it say that a DP takes a hull point ding.

You would take 2 hp off for failing DT with a drop pod.

And you're right, we're not talking about a vehicle that has gone into DT and failed. We're talking about a vehicle that suffers an immediate immobilization result on the vehicle damage chart, exactly as if failing dangerous terrain.

Fragile wrote:
Your trying to combine two rules into one. The Immobilized damage result is number 5 on the damage chart. You suffer all the results of #5. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's not what the rule says.

Your trying to say that all #5 Results follow the rules for a failed terrain test when the reverse is true.

The reverse is true? The terrain tests follows the rules for a #5 result?
Cool. Awesome.
Then by your interpretation there's a hull point loss. Because the failed terrain test explicitly causes a hull point loss.

 kirsanth wrote:

Dooley wrote:
All you do is take the Imobilized result. You have taken NO DAMAGE and have become stuck by design.

Immobilized is a damage result. Thus it's placement on the "Vehicle Damage Table".

Ok but you have not been DAMAGED! You have simply taken the result of the chart. Again re-look at the way damage works on a vehicle.
1. hit
2 Pen/Glance
2a Glance loose a Hull point
2b Pen loose a Hull point
3 If Glance in addition roll on the table

The Drop Pod goes straight to the damage table. No damage has been metted out so no hull point has been lost.

With a DT terain test you HAVE taken damage (the Faq explains this) you take a HP ding AND have automaticaly rolled a 5 result on the table (no this does NOT mean that if it is open topped it goes up one and is wreked).

Again are you saying that any imobilized gun that gets deep struck onto the boared ALSO takes a -1 HP? (Basalisks, Tarantulas, etc)

I am glad Spods are not vehicles.



Immobilized Monstrous Creatures just don't move.

heh

editing to add:
To be clear, I mostly think this is hilarious, not intended; it is hard to read otherwise now, though.

No you are a falling monsterous creature and have been grounded so you take a st 9 Hit when you hit the ground. I mean after all you are a giant creature that just hit the earth so some damage HAS to be applyed to you! On the pluss side Nids can only deploy 3" away from a MS!

If they FAQ Spods to say they were grounded, like they FAQ immobilized, that would be exactly the case.

Dooley wrote:
We are not talking about a vehicle that has gone into dangerous terain we are talking about a vehicle that is designed to hit the ground and then become imobilized.

You know, we had the exact same discussion back when the Drop Pod was first introduced to the game. People (myself included, to be honest) refused to believe that GW would introduce a vehicle into the game that suffered a damage result (which at the time also meant handing free victory points straight to your opponent) just for being brought into play.

Then GW ruled that the Drop Pod being immobile did indeed mean that it had suffered an immobilised result on the damage table... A ruling that has now been reflected in the core rules.


Yes, by the strict wording of the rules the pod has simply taken a result off the table and not suffered a glancing or penetrating hit, and so technically shouldn't lose a Hull point. But the same is true of a vehicle failing a terrain roll... and look which way GW went on that.

The fact that one is damage caused by terrain and one is damage caused by just using the vehicle as intended is irrelevant here. The two effects are the same... you apply a damage result without the vehicle having suffered a glance or pen. So the end result should also be the same.

They didnt FAQ imobilized. They FAQed a failed dangerous terrain test! Drop Pods (when landing in open tereain) dont take a DT test so dont EVER loose a HP when landing. And will ONLY loose a HP if they land in DT and toll a 1.

Dooley wrote:
They didnt FAQ imobilized. They FAQed a failed dangerous terrain test!

Yes, we're all well aware of that.

As I said, identical effects, so it's only reasonable to expect identical outcomes. If GW do get around to FAQing it, do you really believe that they will go with the 'no Hull Point' option, with the terrain test there as a precedent?

Dooley wrote:
They didnt FAQ imobilized. They FAQed a failed dangerous terrain test! Drop Pods (when landing in open tereain) dont take a DT test so dont EVER loose a HP when landing. And will ONLY loose a HP if they land in DT and toll a 1.

But there are FAQ's in the list that state drop pods suffer an immobilized damage result, the wording is almost identical to the dangerous terrain FAQ addition, the only difference is that the entry for the drop pods in the codex FAQ's has been there longer. The end result is still the same. You are suffering a damage result from the table, the only way to suffer those results is to have a penetrating hit on the vehicle, and that includes losing a hull point. All you're doing is forgoing the roll on the chart because your result is predetermined for you.

Dooley wrote:
Drop Pods (when landing in open tereain) dont take a DT test so dont EVER loose a HP when landing.

Prior to the FAQ about immobilization, I would have agreed.

"immediately suffers an Immobilised result from
the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”

Which directly includes losing the HP to immobilization as it relates to the damage table - since drop pods are treated "in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result"

Silly? Sure, but that has no bearing on whether its correct.
There are plenty of rules I do not agree with that are still correct.

You are only taking the Hll point ding becasue you failed a dangerous terrain test with a vehicle. Deep Strikinng and becomeing imobile IS NO THE SAME THING. Therefore two different outcomes.
Again a deepstriking vehicle has not failed a dangerous terain test so it does not IN ADDITION take a loss of a hull point. It simply becomes immobilized as if one had rolled that result on the table. One cannot assume that one rule applys to another!

Dooley wrote:
You are only taking the Hll point ding becasue you failed a dangerous terrain test with a vehicle. Deep Strikinng and becomeing imobile IS NO THE SAME THING. Therefore two different outcomes.
Again a deepstriking vehicle has not failed a dangerous terain test so it does not IN ADDITION take a loss of a hull point. It simply becomes immobilized as if one had rolled that result on the table. One cannot assume that one rule applys to another!

Well, that last bit really only applies to cross codex stuff, like when storm shields were 3+ in one codex and 5+ in another.

While I'd normally agree that one rule shouldn't have any bearing on another, in this case it's pretty clear that the two rules are coinciding with one another as the results are IDENTICAL but the method of achieving the result is only slightly different.

Dooley wrote:
You are only taking the Hll point ding becasue you failed a dangerous terrain test with a vehicle.

And why does that cost you a Hull Point?

Deep Strikinng and becomeing imobile IS NO THE SAME THING.

The vehicle failing a terrain test suffers an immobilised result without taking a glancing or penetrating hit.
The drop pod on landing suffers an immobilised result without taking a glancing or penetrating hit.

Sure sounds like the same thing to me...

One cannot assume that one rule applys to another!

Nobody is assuming that one rule applies to another. I'm assuming that two rules that have identical effects should have identical outcomes. That's admittedly not always a given with GW, but it's true more often than not.

You are not counting "including losing one Hull Point" as being related to the previous "immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table" which confuses me.

 kirsanth wrote:
You are not counting "including losing one Hull Point" as being related to the previous "immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table" which confuses me.

The drop pod rule says that once the drop pod enters the battle, it "...counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result..." not that it suffers a glancing or penetrating hit and suffers an immoblilized damage result.

The Immobilized damage result just says the vehicle cannot move but if a vehicle is immobilized and suffers another immobilized result, you then "...instead remove an additional Hull Point." The immobilized result on the damage table only mentions removing hull points if additional immoblized damage is taken.

Only glancing and penetrating hits automatically remove a hull point.

Now the latest space marine FAQ does state:

Q: Do Drop Pods count as immobilised the moment they touch down?
Also, are any immobilised hits on them counted for weapon destroyed
etc? (p69)
A. Yes

So, a drop pod enters play, you place it on the table, you roll for scatter and the final placement of the drop pod is determined. This is the moment that the drop pod has touched down. It now counts as a vehicle that suffered an immobilized damage result, which is implemented after a glancing or penetrating hit, which the pod did not suffer, so it cannot move any further but has not lost a hull point.

If the pods final location, whether due to scatter or not, is in difficult or dangerous terrain it takes a damgerous terrain test. If it fails the test, it is immoblilized but since it was already immobilized "the moment" when it touched down it has now suffered an additional immobilized result, so it now loses a hull point.

The best basic question to ask is does a vehicle (any vehicle) that fails a dangerous terrain test and becomes immobilized lose a hull point? If so, where is this written in the rules? All it says on page 71 is that if a vehicle fails its dangerous terrain test it is immediately immobilized. It does not say the vehicle takes a hit and is immobilized, just that it is immobilized. And IMO there is a difference between being immobilized and being hit and immobilized.