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.

 time wizard wrote:
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?

Yes. In the FAQ.

So you guys seriously think the gw lot sat down and thought, you know what let's give the drop pods some damage when they come in. I am pretty sure the rule is worded that way so some git dosnt try and move the drop pod around like a tank

Daston wrote:
So you guys seriously think the gw lot sat down and thought, you know what let's give the drop pods some damage when they come in.

Yes, that exactly what they thought, and specifically said as much back when they ruled that way waaaay back in 4th edition... Nothing has changed, aside from the rules becoming more explicit about that damage.

rigeld2 wrote:

 time wizard wrote:
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?

Yes. In the FAQ.

Thanks rigeld! Yup right in the front in the errata section.

But, I still hold that a drop pod when it arrives via deep strike is indeed immobilised "the moment" it touches down like the SM FAQ says, but that "touching down" is not a failed dangerous terrain test, nor is it a glancing or penetrating hit, so it does not lose a hull point at that point in time. None of the criteria for losing a hull point are met simply by deep striking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Daston wrote:
So you guys seriously think the gw lot sat down and thought, you know what let's give the drop pods some damage when they come in.

Yes, that exactly what they thought, and specifically said as much back when they ruled that way waaaay back in 4th edition... Nothing has changed, aside from the rules becoming more explicit about that damage.

But insaniak, 4th edition didn't have hull points, drop pods were merely immobile vehicles.

Of course, back then there was the argument that deep striking rules said to roll the scatter dice and that was how many inches to move the drop pod, but of course it couldn't move if it was immobile!
Now that was pure silliness!

rigeld2 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
The -1 hull point comes from the penetrating hit, not the damage result.
No Pen was caused on the pod, so no loss of HP.

While I agree, dangerous terrain immobilizations also cause a hull point loss per the FAQ.

The drop pod didn't take a dangerous terrain check.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Thats exactly what the rule says. Your trying to pull a comparable to another wording. Nothing in that damage results table including removing a hull point.

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.

Now your misinterpreting, Failing a dangerous terrain test results in an Immobilized result, including the loss of a Hull point. That they had to say "Including the loss" means specifically that the loss of a hull point was NOT in the Immobilized damage result section.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Thats exactly what the rule says. Your trying to pull a comparable to another wording. Nothing in that damage results table including removing a hull point.

Correct. And I'm not saying it does. I'm saying the drop pod rule doesn't reference #5 on the damage table, it references "a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result".
How do vehicles suffer damage results?

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote: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.

Now your misinterpreting, Failing a dangerous terrain test results in an Immobilized result, including the loss of a Hull point. That they had to say "Including the loss" means specifically that the loss of a hull point was NOT in the Immobilized damage result section.

I'm not misinterpreting - you actually said that.
And no - because they said "an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point" that means that the hull point is part of the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table.

 time wizard wrote:
But insaniak, 4th edition didn't have hull points, drop pods were merely immobile vehicles.

The point was that GW deliberately wrote the rules for the Drop Pod (in 3 separate editions now) to result in the pod suffering damage the moment it hits the board, rather than just introducing a 'Stationary Vehicle' type.

All that has changed in 6th edition is that damage now also generally includes the loss of a Hull Point. And given that you now lose a Hull Point in every other situation in which the vehicle takes damage, I see no real reason to assume that GW won't rule the same way for Drop Pods.

Fragile wrote:
results in an Immobilized result, including the loss of a Hull point.

Not "results in an Immobilized result, including the additional loss of a Hull point" (or somesuch) which is what you are reading.

rigeld2 wrote:
And no - because they said "an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point" that means that the hull point is part of the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table.

No, it's not. Read the "Immobilised" section on the Vehicle Damage Table on page 74. The only mention of losing a Hull Point is if an already immobilised vehicle suffers another immobilised result. Then it loses a hit point.

Adding the hit point in the errata clears up the fact that (as I mistakenly thought) failing a dangerous terrain test, prior to the errata, just immobilised the vehicle without the loss of a hull point. Since the errata came out, we now know that failing a dangerous terrain test causes the vehicle to become immobilised and to lose a hull point.

A drop pod is immobilized the moment it touches down and counts in all respects as having suffered an immobilized damage result. And that result, see above, does not in and of itself, remove a hull point. You require the vehicle to either suffer a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, failing a dangerous terrain test or suffering an additional immobilised damage result to lose a hull point. A drop pod by landing has not met any of those 4 criteria.

Fragile wrote:
That they had to say "Including the loss" means specifically that the loss of a hull point was NOT in the Immobilized damage result section.

Heh. That wording implies exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. They worded it like losing a hull point is a perfectly natural consequence of taking an immobilization result. If it wasn't, it would be worded "and also the loss" or equivalent.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And no - because they said "an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point" that means that the hull point is part of the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table.

No, it's not. Read the "Immobilised" section on the Vehicle Damage Table on page 74. The only mention of losing a Hull Point is if an already immobilised vehicle suffers another immobilised result. Then it loses a hit point.

Adding the hit point in the errata clears up the fact that (as I mistakenly thought) failing a dangerous terrain test, prior to the errata, just immobilised the vehicle without the loss of a hull point. Since the errata came out, we now know that failing a dangerous terrain test causes the vehicle to become immobilised and to lose a hull point.

A drop pod is immobilized the moment it touches down and counts in all respects as having suffered an immobilized damage result. And that result, see above, does not in and of itself, remove a hull point. You require the vehicle to either suffer a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, failing a dangerous terrain test or suffering an additional immobilised damage result to lose a hull point. A drop pod by landing has not met any of those 4 criteria.

Ok, looking at the results on the vehicle damage chart means nothing. NONE of them reference losing a hull point, except what you noted. None, at all. As I said earlier as well, prior to the FAQ the dangerous terrain rule, there is actually less wording about vehicles failing dangerous terrain than there is (now) about drop pods suffering a result on the vehicle damage chart. Yes, I know we aren't talking about the drop pod failing a test but prior to the FAQ they should have been losing a hull point anyway.

Also, you're equating failing DT with losing the hull point, which isn't the case. It's the fact that it's immediately immobilized as per the vehicle damage chart that causes it to lose a hull point. I realize that one can not happen without the other in this instance, but the DT failure is not the cause of the HP loss.

Well, the Space Marine FAQ only further pbscures this whole issue.

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, according to the FAQ, it would seem that an immobilised hit on a drop pod would count for weapon destroyed.

Really? So an immobilised damage result on an immobilised vehicle causes a weapon to be destroyed?

In 5th edition, yes. In 6th edition, further immobilised results remove a hit point instead. No weapons are removed.

So here's a 6th edition FAQ that covers 5th edition vehicle damage results.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And no - because they said "an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point" that means that the hull point is part of the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table.

No, it's not. Read the "Immobilised" section on the Vehicle Damage Table on page 74. The only mention of losing a Hull Point is if an already immobilised vehicle suffers another immobilised result. Then it loses a hit point.

Adding the hit point in the errata clears up the fact that (as I mistakenly thought) failing a dangerous terrain test, prior to the errata, just immobilised the vehicle without the loss of a hull point. Since the errata came out, we now know that failing a dangerous terrain test causes the vehicle to become immobilised and to lose a hull point.

A drop pod is immobilized the moment it touches down and counts in all respects as having suffered an immobilized damage result. And that result, see above, does not in and of itself, remove a hull point. You require the vehicle to either suffer a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, failing a dangerous terrain test or suffering an additional immobilised damage result to lose a hull point. A drop pod by landing has not met any of those 4 criteria.

The FAQ says that the vehicle is immobilized including the loss of a hull point. Not in addition to as your interpretation would require.
If the hull point is not a not al part of the damage table, it can't be referenced by simply saying "including".

From what I read in the rules, there are 3 ways for a vehicle to be immobilized:

1) From armor pen rolls.

2) From dangerous terrain tests.

3) From entering play via deepstrike or essentially, any special rule that makes it an immobile vehicle/treated as an immobilized vehicle when it enters play.

Trying to infer that a drop pod should lose a hull point when it enters play doesn't make too much sense because 1.) It never takes a penetrating hit and 2.) It doesn't take a dangerous terrain test and As far as RAW, it appears only becoming immobilized from armor pen rolls and failed dangerous terrain tests cause the removal of a hull point.

 mortetvie wrote:
From what I read in the rules, there are 3 ways for a vehicle to be immobilized:

1) From armor pen rolls.

2) From dangerous terrain tests.

3) From entering play via deepstrike or essentially, any special rule that makes it an immobile vehicle/treated as an immobilized vehicle when it enters play.

Trying to infer that a drop pod should lose a hull point when it enters play doesn't make too much sense because 1.) It never takes a penetrating hit and 2.) It doesn't take a dangerous terrain test and As far as RAW, it appears only becoming immobilized from armor pen rolls and failed dangerous terrain tests cause the removal of a hull point.

But losing a HP from failing dangerous terrain is included in the Immobilisation result from the vehicle damage table.

It is "suffer an immobilisation result as per the vehicle damage table, including the loss of a hull point." not "suffer an immobilisation result as per the vehicle damage table and the loss of a hull point."

 mortetvie wrote:
Trying to infer that a drop pod should lose a hull point when it enters play doesn't make too much sense because 1.) It never takes a penetrating hit and 2.) It doesn't take a dangerous terrain test and As far as RAW, it appears only becoming immobilized from armor pen rolls and failed dangerous terrain tests cause the removal of a hull point.

The thing is, up until the FAQ the vehicle failing the terrain test didn't lose a hull point either.

This seems like a clear case of GW just clarifying that 'damage = Hull Point'. Given that the Space Marine FAQ is still referring to the 5th edition damage chart, it's not a big leap to assume that they just overlooked it, and that the Drop Pod will sooner or later be FAQd to match.

Insanik, I understand what you are saying but taking a hull point because you enter play immobilized is NOT the same as taking one for failed dangerous terrain tests or armor pen rolls therefore you cannot say one follows from the other.

A town called malus, I am not sure what you are exactly arguing because dangerous terrain and armor pen rolls are the only ways explicitly stated that a vehicle will lose a hullpoint, all other means of being immobilized should not be assumed to cause a HP worth of damage.

 mortetvie wrote:
Insanik, I understand what you are saying but taking a hull point because you enter play immobilized is NOT the same as taking one for failed dangerous terrain tests or armor pen rolls therefore you cannot say one follows from the other.

Why are they not the same?

Again:

 insaniak wrote:
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.

So what exactly is the difference that you're seeing?

 mortetvie wrote:
Insanik, I understand what you are saying but taking a hull point because you enter play immobilized is NOT the same as taking one for failed dangerous terrain tests or armor pen rolls therefore you cannot say one follows from the other.

A town called malus, I am not sure what you are exactly arguing because dangerous terrain and armor pen rolls are the only ways explicitly stated that a vehicle will lose a hullpoint, all other means of being immobilized should not be assumed to cause a HP worth of damage.

And...why is it not the same? Your vehicle does not start as an immobilized vehicle as it "counts as moving at cruising speed when deep striking". It is then immediately immobilized as if suffering an immobilization result on the vehicle damage chart when it enters play.

Do you honestly think your crazy inexpensive vastly utilized near mishap proof vehicle is also immune to damage?

It i not the same because it did not get immobilized BECAUSE of entering difficult terrain or FAILING a terrain test.

The requisite elements of failing a terrain test or taking a penetrating hit are not there. For those reasons, it does not follow that simply being immobilized means you lose a hull point.

Otherwise, the mycetic spore should take a wound (or an armor save) when it deepstrikes by that logic. because that is the equivalent for non-vehicle models.

It is worth noting that the losing of a HP is ONLY mentioned for failed dangerous terrain tests and armor pen results, therefore ONLY in these two instances should a vehicle that is immobile/immobilized lose a HP. All other possible ways of being immobilized need an FAQ entry otherwise you guys are ruling RAI not RAW. I was merely pointing out what RAW is.

and where Kevin949 says "Do you honestly think your crazy inexpensive vastly utilized near mishap proof vehicle is also immune to damage?" I play Eldar so I don't get drop pods and have never actually used one. =)

The FAQ ties a hull point to the immobilized result that vehicles take.
A drop pod takes an immobilized result like a normal vehicle.

I'm not saying the drop pod takes a penetrating hit or fails a dangerous terrain test - it doesn't. But the dangerous terrain FAQ includes a HP loss with the immobilization.

Oh, and Mycetic Spores are immune to dangerous terrain tests by virtue of being MCs (who get move through cover).

 mortetvie wrote:
It i not the same because it did not get immobilized BECAUSE of entering difficult terrain or FAILING a terrain test.

So you think that identical situations should have different outcomes?

It is worth noting that the losing of a HP is ONLY mentioned for failed dangerous terrain tests and armor pen results, therefore ONLY in these two instances should a vehicle that is immobile/immobilized lose a HP. All other possible ways of being immobilized need an FAQ entry otherwise you guys are ruling RAI not RAW. I was merely pointing out what RAW is.

Yes, we've covered that. Repeatedly.

The point is that regardless of what the RAW currently says, it's highly likely that if an when GW FAQ this, they'll rule that the Drop Pod suffers from Immobilisation in exactly the same way as every other Immobilised vehicle. For the moment, you can certainly make a RAW argument for the pod not loosing a Hull Point, but if you seriously think the game will stay that way once GW realise that the current FAQ entry for the Drop Pod is still referring to 5th edition rules, you're most likely going to be disappointed.

Rigeld2, you are absolutely correct, but the FAQ ties it on the basis of taking/failing a dangerous terrain test.

The fact is that a drop pod does not take an immobilized result from taking a dangerous terrain test or pen result so it is not necessarily subject to taking a HP like in these instances. That is my point.

 mortetvie wrote:
Rigeld2, you are absolutely correct, but the FAQ ties it on the basis of taking/failing a dangerous terrain test.

The fact is that a drop pod does not take an immobilized result from taking a dangerous terrain test or pen result so it is not necessarily subject to taking a HP like in these instances. That is my point.

It doesnt tie the hull point loss to failing a dangerous terrain test. It includes the hull point loss with the immobilization result.
Yes, the DT test caused the immobilization result, but it's the immobilize that includes the hull point loss.

Well, let me just put out where I am coming from and we can go from there:

Using logic:

RAW:
Vehicle suffers pen result --> loses hull point
Vehicle fails terrain test --> suffers immobilized result and loses hull point.
Drop pod enters play--> immobilized

You guys are saying because a vehicle suffers a HP from an immobilized result from a failed terrain test, an immobilized Drop Pod should also lose a HP but that doesn't necessarily follow logically.

That is like saying the following:
Think of legs broken as immobilized result and the mobility in leg for life as the HP.

A gets hit in the leg--> legs broken and loses mobility in legs for life
B trips out of clumsiness--> breaks his legs and loses mobility in legs for life
C falls-->breaks legs

Just because C breaks his legs, does not mean he will or should lose mobility for life simply based on the fact that the first two did.

Do you see? Just because a failed dangerous terrain test makes a vehicle immobilized and therefore lose a HP, doesn't mean necessarily that a drop pod that is immobilized when it enters play also loses a HP. That is non-sequitor because the key thing is what CAUSES the immobilized result.

The language in the FAQ specifically says "including losing one hull point" as if to say in this particular instance, an immobilized result would cause the loss of a HP. It does not say "because of the immobilized result, it loses a Hull Point."

 mortetvie wrote:
You guys are saying because a vehicle suffers a HP from an immobilized result from a failed terrain test, an immobilized Drop Pod should also lose a HP ...

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Not because that's what the rules currently say, but because that's the only logical outcome of this that makes any sense. Because:

 insaniak wrote:
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.

...and when you're talking about the rules for a game, when you have two identical effects, you should always have two identical outcomes. Because anything else just creates needless complexity.

40k has plenty of identical effects that don't necessarily create identical results, such as taking a wound...Different weapons cause wounds just the same but there are many factors that determine if that wound is taken. Same with being immobilized and losing a HP.

Either way, we'll hopefully find out soon enough, GW has been doing a good job with churning out those FAQs.

Personally, if I play against someone using Drop Pods, I won't make them play as if their pods took a HP of damage, that doesn't seem right.

 mortetvie wrote:
40k has plenty of identical effects that don't necessarily create identical results, such as taking a wound...Different weapons cause wounds just the same but there are many factors that determine if that wound is taken.

Nope, you've lost me there.

Wounding works exactly the same for everything with the same rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
The FAQ ties a hull point to the immobilized result that vehicles take for failing a Dangerous Terrain Test [

Corrected that for ya.