There is nothing in the drop pod assault rule that notes the loss of a hull point.

You can't infer a hull point loss from an errata to a completely different rule.

If there is no rule stating loss of a hull point then it can not lose a hull point.

Kevlar wrote:
There is nothing in the drop pod assault rule that notes the loss of a hull point.

You can't infer a hull point loss from an errata to a completely different rule.

If there is no rule stating loss of a hull point then it can not lose a hull point.

So the DTT damage result is different from the drop pod one?

rigeld2 wrote:

So DTT immobilize just causes a hill point damage and you drive away?]

Of course not!

The Rule for vehicles failing DTT had to be re-written and errata'd because there was confusion in the original rule. It said, "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test is instantly Immobilised (see page 74)."

When you look at page 74 you see the Immobilised result on the damage table. That result alone does not say that an Immobilised vehicle automatically loses a Hull Point, just that vehicles that were already immobilised would lose an additional one. So the original rule was too vague about whether a vehicle failing a DTT would lose a hull point. And a vehicle failing a DTT could never lose an additional hull point from a second immobilised result, because if it was immobilised it could not move into difficult or dangerous terrain.

If the errata simply said, “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table." there would still be nothing in the rules that specified that the vehicle would lose a Hull Point.

So the errata reads, “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point." so that there is no doubt that the vehicle cannot be moved any further, cannot pivot, and also loses a Hull Point.

I can see your point that to get to an immobilised damage result, you would have lost a hull point, but that's only after taking a penetrating hit. If you take a glancing hit, there is no roll on the damage table.

I believe the wording of the DTT errata is meant to tell us that on a failed DTT, your vehicle is not only immobilised as spelled out on the vehicle damage table, the result of failing that test includes losing a hull point, even though you were not immobilised due to a penetrating hit, or from getting hit at all.

But a drop pod that touches down on the battlefield counts as a vehicle that suffered an immobilised damage result, which from the failed DTT we see can be or could have been achieved without taking a penetrating hit and the loss of a hull point, and the drop pod rule does not have the "...including losing one Hull Point." addendum that the failed DTT has.

That's why I believe that the drop pod, the moment it touches down, is immobilised exactly as spelled out on the vehicle damage table, but it does not lose a hull point as well. At least not until the SM FAQ is revised to say so.

So you agree that the hull point is part and parcel with the damage result?

If all the damage results are referencing the same thing, I don't get you can say that one of the immobilisations does suffer a hull point but the others totally do.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you agree that the hull point is part and parcel with the damage result?

If the loss of the hull point was part and parcel of all vehicle damage results, and a damage result like, say, immobilised was repaired, then wouldn't the hull point be "repaired" or restored as well?

The loss of the hull point occurs before the vehicle damage when a penetrating hit has been suffered, simultaneous with the vehicle damage when the vehicle fails the DTT, but does not occur when a drop pod lands in clear terrain.

The vehicle damage table rules are written the way they are because more often than not, a roll will be made on that table after a vehicle has already suffered a penetrating hit.

Failing a dangerous terrain test is an exception to the rules that has now been clarified. But as of now, it is only clarified specifically for failing that test.

Just curious, before the FAQ was there any reason for a vehicle to loose a Hull Point from failing a terrain test?

FAQ's change rules a lot, and those changes don't always follow the rules themselves.

 grendel083 wrote:
Just curious, before the FAQ was there any reason for a vehicle to loose a Hull Point from failing a terrain test?

FAQ's change rules a lot, and those changes don't always follow the rules themselves.

There was nothing obvious or overt. As I quoted, the original rule said, "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test is instantly Immobilised (see page 74)."

Nothing about suffering damage or taking damage as per the vehicle damage chart, nothing about being damaged at all for that matter.

With the exception of being immobilised that is!

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you agree that the hull point is part and parcel with the damage result?

If the loss of the hull point was part and parcel of all vehicle damage results, and a damage result like, say, immobilised was repaired, then wouldn't the hull point be "repaired" or restored as well?

No, because repairing can specifically only do one of them.

The loss of the hull point occurs before the vehicle damage when a penetrating hit has been suffered, simultaneous with the vehicle damage when the vehicle fails the DTT, but does not occur when a drop pod lands in clear terrain.

So the damage result is different between the three of them.
Which ones use the rules in the table? For the ones that don't, where would I find rules for them?

rigeld2 wrote:
So the damage result is different between the three of them.

As they stand now, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which ones use the rules in the table? For the ones that don't, where would I find rules for them?

How can I give a rule for a vehicle that doesn't use a particular rule? How can I prove a negative?

The positive rules proofs are:

Suffer a penetrating hit, lose a hull point and suffer vehicle damage like immobilised.

Fait a DTT, become immobilised and lose a hull point.

Land a drop pod, become immobilised. Nothing else is specified.

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
Well I can see why you would think that, but I don't think it's the case.

Page 71 – Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from
the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.

This refers to Vehicles and DTT's, not the Immobilized result as a whole. If the FAQ errata'd the rules for "Immobilized", then I would agree.

It says that the Damage Result includes losing one hull point. There's nothing there to tie it specifically to the DTT.

Seriously, you believe that even though it is errata for Vehicles and Dangerous Terrain, it has nothing to do with Vehicles and Dangerous Terrain specifically? If you believe that, then there's nothing I can say to help you understand.

 grendel083 wrote:
Just curious, before the FAQ was there any reason for a vehicle to loose a Hull Point from failing a terrain test?

FAQ's change rules a lot, and those changes don't always follow the rules themselves.

Look at the rule in the book about it, you'll understand then.

All it says is - a vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test is immediately immobilized (Pg 74.).

That's pretty much all it says.

 time wizard wrote:
The positive rules proofs are:

Suffer a penetrating hit, lose a hull point and suffer vehicle damage like immobilised.

Fait a DTT, become immobilised and lose a hull point.

Land a drop pod, become immobilised. Nothing else is specified.

This. The rules for penetrating hits are 1. suffer a penetrating hit and lose a hull point and 2. suffer a damage result (such as immobilized). The rules for deploying a drop pod are 1. Deploy the drop pod and 2. suffer an immobilized result. Unless and until GW FAQ/errata this there is no rule which requires the removal of a hull point form a drop pod on deployment.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the damage result is different between the three of them.

As they stand now, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which ones use the rules in the table? For the ones that don't, where would I find rules for them?

How can I give a rule for a vehicle that doesn't use a particular rule? How can I prove a negative?

The positive rules proofs are:

Suffer a penetrating hit, lose a hull point and suffer vehicle damage like immobilised.

Fait a DTT, become immobilised and lose a hull point.

Land a drop pod, become immobilised. Nothing else is specified.

You're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

You've asserted that the damage result between the three is different. That means we can't use the damage table rules to resolve what happens when a DTT immobilizes a vehicle. Nor can we use it to determine what an immobile drop pod means. So could you find me the rules to define immobilized in those two examples?

rigeld2 wrote:

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the damage result is different between the three of them.

As they stand now, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which ones use the rules in the table? For the ones that don't, where would I find rules for them?

How can I give a rule for a vehicle that doesn't use a particular rule? How can I prove a negative?

The positive rules proofs are:

Suffer a penetrating hit, lose a hull point and suffer vehicle damage like immobilised.

Fait a DTT, become immobilised and lose a hull point.

Land a drop pod, become immobilised. Nothing else is specified.

You're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

You've asserted that the damage result between the three is different. That means we can't use the damage table rules to resolve what happens when a DTT immobilizes a vehicle. Nor can we use it to determine what an immobile drop pod means. So could you find me the rules to define immobilized in those two examples?

I pointed It out and now he has pointed it out, you are asking for us to prove a negative as your magic trump card to your argument.

I have not once asserted that the damage results between the three are different. Even he hasn't either. We have asserted that the circumstances for each circumstance are unique to how a hull point is lost or not lost.

1. A Penetrating Hit causes the loss of a hull point and a roll on the Vehicle Damage table, which can result in an Immobilized result (per the table).
2. A failed DTT will Immobilize (per the table) and includes a hull point loss.

The FAQ for drop pods does not include a hull point loss. It tells you that you are immobilized which refers you to the table. At no time does it include a hull point loss.

So stop asking for us to prove the negative as none of us are saying there is a seperate vehicle damage table.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the damage result is different between the three of them.

As they stand now, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which ones use the rules in the table? For the ones that don't, where would I find rules for them?

How can I give a rule for a vehicle that doesn't use a particular rule? How can I prove a negative?

The positive rules proofs are:

Suffer a penetrating hit, lose a hull point and suffer vehicle damage like immobilised.

Fait a DTT, become immobilised and lose a hull point.

Land a drop pod, become immobilised. Nothing else is specified.

You're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

You've asserted that the damage result between the three is different. That means we can't use the damage table rules to resolve what happens when a DTT immobilizes a vehicle. Nor can we use it to determine what an immobile drop pod means. So could you find me the rules to define immobilized in those two examples?

I pointed It out and now he has pointed it out, you are asking for us to prove a negative as your magic trump card to your argument.

I have not once asserted that the damage results between the three are different. Even he hasn't either. We have asserted that the circumstances for each circumstance are unique to how a hull point is lost or not lost.

Actually, he did. I've even left it in the quote.

1. A Penetrating Hit causes the loss of a hull point and a roll on the Vehicle Damage table, which can result in an Immobilized result (per the table).
2. A failed DTT will Immobilize (per the table) and includes a hull point loss.

The FAQ for drop pods does not include a hull point loss. It tells you that you are immobilized which refers you to the table. At no time does it include a hull point loss.

Can suffering a wound from dangerous terrain remove a model? What are the pen rules during a death or glory?
Your assertion is that every rule contains everything you need to know. That's proven false.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your assertion is that every rule contains everything you need to know. That's proven false.

Why? Because you say so? You're adding complexity to something that doesn't need it. The description for the Immobilized result is in the BRB. The(errata'd) description for failing a DTT is in the 1.1 FAQ, and then includes a second condition(removing a hull point) for failing a DTT. That's really everything we need to follow the rules. There's plenty of areas in the rules that are ambiguous, but this isn't one of them.

rigeld2 wrote:
Can suffering a wound from dangerous terrain remove a model?

It can if the model has only one wound remaining and fails a save that it might have.
But the dangerous terrain rule on page 90 does not mention vehicles at all, that's why there has to be a different rule covering failed dangerous terrain tests for vehicles.
The 2 rules are similar, but different in their application. Happens from time to time in the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
What are the pen rules during a death or glory?

They are the same as the rules for any other attack.
But a drop pod landing has not been attacked or suffered a hit.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your assertion is that every rule contains everything you need to know. That's proven false.

Some rules build on other rules.
Some rules do indeed contain all the specifics for that particular rule and how that rule interracts with a model type.
For example, the "Gets Hot" obviously must build on the rules for target acquisition, range, LOS, etc. but the rule also contains all the details you need to know to resolve rolling a certain result on a die that is particular to that rule.

The drop pod rule says that it arrives via deep strike so it builds on the deep strike rule, but contains specifices about what happens after it lands.
After the pod lands, every passenger must disembark. this is different from other transports, but is specific to the drop pod.
The moment it touches down it is immobile, and counts as a vehicle that suffered an immobilised damage result, but not including losing a hull point.

That particular inclusion is specified in failing a DTT, but lacking in the drop pod rule.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Can suffering a wound from dangerous terrain remove a model?

It can if the model has only one wound remaining and fails a save that it might have.
But the dangerous terrain rule on page 90 does not mention vehicles at all, that's why there has to be a different rule covering failed dangerous terrain tests for vehicles.
The 2 rules are similar, but different in their application. Happens from time to time in the rules.

You missed my point. You're saying that anything the rule does will be included in the rule.
Dangerous Terrain wounds don't ever say that models will be removed.
Therefore, according to you, they don't get removed.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your assertion is that every rule contains everything you need to know. That's proven false.

Some rules build on other rules.
Some rules do indeed contain all the specifics for that particular rule and how that rule interracts with a model type.
For example, the "Gets Hot" obviously must build on the rules for target acquisition, range, LOS, etc. but the rule also contains all the details you need to know to resolve rolling a certain result on a die that is particular to that rule.

So now I'm confused. The "Immobilised Damage Result" in the 3 rules is different - which you agreed to (I can re-quote it if you need to be reminded) - but you can't cite a source for how to treat the immobilised for the two non-damage result table ones, and you're now saying that some rules build on other ones... meaning that something in rule B can effect how rule A works. Which is what I'm saying.

The drop pod rule says that it arrives via deep strike so it builds on the deep strike rule, but contains specifices about what happens after it lands.
After the pod lands, every passenger must disembark. this is different from other transports, but is specific to the drop pod.
The moment it touches down it is immobile, and counts as a vehicle that suffered an immobilised damage result, but not including losing a hull point.

That particular inclusion is specified in failing a DTT, but lacking in the drop pod rule.

Removing a model as a casualty is specified in taking a wound in the shooting phase, but lacking in the Dangerous Terrain test rule. Obviously casualties are not removed due to DTT failures. Thanks for pointing that out.

rigeld2 wrote:
You missed my point. You're saying that anything the rule does will be included in the rule.
Dangerous Terrain wounds don't ever say that models will be removed.
Therefore, according to you, they don't get removed.

You missed my point.
Anything the rules does will be included in the rule, true.
But not necessarily everything the rule does will be included.

rigeld2 wrote:
So now I'm confused. The "Immobilised Damage Result" in the 3 rules is different - which you agreed to (I can re-quote it if you need to be reminded) - but you can't cite a source for how to treat the immobilised for the two non-damage result table ones, and you're now saying that some rules build on other ones... meaning that something in rule B can effect how rule A works. Which is what I'm saying.

I apologize for the confusion. You said, "So the damage result is different between the three of them." and I said "As they stand now. yes."
I was referring to the damage result, not the "Immobilised Damage Result" on the "Vehicle Damage Table".
The "Immobilised Damage Result", the rule specified on the table, the "cannot move...may not even pivot...further immobilised results remove hull points" remains the same. But the "vehicle damage" actually suffered can be different.
Take a penetrating hit - lose a hull point.
Immobilised on the Vehicle Damage Table and already immobilised - lose an additional hull point
Fail a DTT - immobilised and lose a hull point.
Land a drop pod - immobilised only.

See, different vehicle damage results even though each vehicle suffered "Immobilised Vehicle Damage".

rigeld2 wrote:
Removing a model as a casualty is specified in taking a wound in the shooting phase, but lacking in the Dangerous Terrain test rule. Obviously casualties are not removed due to DTT failures. Thanks for pointing that out.

Then obviously vehicles are never removed from losing a hull point to a falied DTT, because removing a vehicle due to it being reduced to 0 wounds is in the Wrecked Vehicle rule but lacking in the Dangerous Terrain rule.
I said that some rules, in fact most rules, bulid upon other rules.
If a model is reduced to 0 wounds, no matter how, it is removed as a casualty.
If a vehicle is reduced to 0 hull points, no matter how, it is wrecked.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Removing a model as a casualty is specified in taking a wound in the shooting phase, but lacking in the Dangerous Terrain test rule. Obviously casualties are not removed due to DTT failures. Thanks for pointing that out.

Then obviously vehicles are never removed from losing a hull point to a falied DTT, because removing a vehicle due to it being reduced to 0 wounds is in the Wrecked Vehicle rule but lacking in the Dangerous Terrain rule.
I said that some rules, in fact most rules, bulid upon other rules.
If a model is reduced to 0 wounds, no matter how, it is removed as a casualty.
If a vehicle is reduced to 0 hull points, no matter how, it is wrecked.

And you're asserting that one rule having something included does not mean that other references to literally the exact same thing don't have it included?

I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either rules are exclusive in that everything to resolve a rule is included in the rule (which cannot be how the 40k rules are written) or rules are inclusive meaning that you have to take the entire rules set as a collective and evaluate using everything.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're asserting that one rule having something included does not mean that other references to literally the exact same thing don't have it included?

I'm asserting that even though the final result (vehicle is immobilised) is the same, the rule for the drop pod lacks the "...including losing one Hull Point."
So you are not permitted to remove the hull point from a drop pod that lands in clear terrain (permissive ruleset).

That being said, I doubt we will ever change one another's mind on this.
But it has been a good argument and I thank you for keeping it civil.

This is starting to remind me of the RFP v RFPaaC brought about due to St. C's FAQ.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're asserting that one rule having something included does not mean that other references to literally the exact same thing don't have it included?

I'm asserting that even though the final result (vehicle is immobilised) is the same, the rule for the drop pod lacks the "...including losing one Hull Point."

If the final result is the same (which you agree with) and the final result in one case includes a hull point loss, what's the justification for treating the final results differently?

rigeld2 wrote:

If the final result is the same (which you agree with) and the final result in one case includes a hull point loss, what's the justification for treating the final results differently?

Just because the final result in one case includes the loss of a hull point, does not automatically mean it includes the loss of a hull point in every case.
Just the ones that specifically say so.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

If the final result is the same (which you agree with) and the final result in one case includes a hull point loss, what's the justification for treating the final results differently?

Just because the final result in one case includes the loss of a hull point, does not automatically mean it includes the loss of a hull point in every case.
Just the ones that specifically say so.

But you've said that the end result is the same across all 3 and the end result includes something...
If it specified additional you'd be right... but I can't see how something is included in one case and not in the exact same case somewhere else, taking the rules as a whole.

rigeld2 wrote:

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

If the final result is the same (which you agree with) and the final result in one case includes a hull point loss, what's the justification for treating the final results differently?

Just because the final result in one case includes the loss of a hull point, does not automatically mean it includes the loss of a hull point in every case.
Just the ones that specifically say so.

But you've said that the end result is the same across all 3 and the end result includes something...
If it specified additional you'd be right... but I can't see how something is included in one case and not in the exact same case somewhere else, taking the rules as a whole.

I dont understand how Tyranid IC cannot join their units in a Spore(transport), when Space marines et.al. can join their units in Drop Pods(tranports). The exact same rule with two entirely different rulings.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

If the final result is the same (which you agree with) and the final result in one case includes a hull point loss, what's the justification for treating the final results differently?

Just because the final result in one case includes the loss of a hull point, does not automatically mean it includes the loss of a hull point in every case.
Just the ones that specifically say so.

But you've said that the end result is the same across all 3 and the end result includes something...
If it specified additional you'd be right... but I can't see how something is included in one case and not in the exact same case somewhere else, taking the rules as a whole.

I dont understand how Tyranid IC cannot join their units in a Spore(transport), when Space marines et.al. can join their units in Drop Pods(tranports). The exact same rule with two entirely different rulings.

Right. But there isn't a ruling saying that the end results are different - people are assuming they are.
There is a ruling saying that Tyranid IC's cannot join units in a spore.

And there is no ruling saying they are the same either. There is only a specific ruling for DT. We are assuming that it applies elsewhere.

Saying that DTT applies to Drop Pods, is similar to saying that St. Celestine's Faq applies to Necrons.

Happyjew wrote:
Saying that DTT applies to Drop Pods, is similar to saying that St. Celestine's Faq applies to Necrons.

Not really.

The St. C FAQ was asking a question specifically about St. C and the answer wasn't inclusive - it does not address all return-from-dead abilities - just St. C's. Therefore to make the connection you have to extend the ruling.
The DTT errata has the end result including a hull point. Since there's no difference in end results you don't have to extend anything - they're already the same.

"is treated as immobilized.."
" is treated as immobilized, including the loss of a hull point"

Are not the same end result though. One clearly has additional information to the other.

Fragile wrote:
"is treated as immobilized.."
" is treated as immobilized, including the loss of a hull point"

Are not the same end result though. One clearly has additional information to the other.

It's not additional, it's included in the result. We know that because they use the word including and not the word additional.

Also, time wizard has accepted that the end result is the same.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
"is treated as immobilized.."
" is treated as immobilized, including the loss of a hull point"

Are not the same end result though. One clearly has additional information to the other.

It's not additional, it's included in the result. We know that because they use the word including and not the word additional.

Also, time wizard has accepted that the end result is the same.

Thats very clearly an assumption, considering that GW is very loose with terminology and this was a FAQ and not necessarily written as a rule. "Including" in that sentence can be used as "also"

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
"is treated as immobilized.."
" is treated as immobilized, including the loss of a hull point"

Are not the same end result though. One clearly has additional information to the other.

It's not additional, it's included in the result. We know that because they use the word including and not the word additional.

Also, time wizard has accepted that the end result is the same.

Thats very clearly an assumption, considering that GW is very loose with terminology and this was a FAQ and not necessarily written as a rule. "Including" in that sentence can be used as "also"

It was actually an errata so clearly written as a rule.

Including can't be used to mean "also". Also means in addition to, include means part of.

in·clude
   [in-klood] Show IPA
verb (used with object), in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing.
1. to contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element: The package includes the computer, program, disks, and a manual.
2. to place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like.
3. to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor.


The loss of the hull point is a subordinate element, separate from the Immobilized.

rigeld2 wrote:
Also, time wizard has accepted that the end result is the same.

I have accepted that the end result, being immobilised, not able to move or pivot, is the same.

There are differences however.

Along with the drop pod not losing a hull point upon landing, it also cannot be repaired by any means.

Some other immobilised vehicles can be repaired.

So the result, immobilised, is the same. But the complete damage, in total, can be very different.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Also, time wizard has accepted that the end result is the same.

I have accepted that the end result, being immobilised, not able to move or pivot, is the same.

There are differences however.

Along with the drop pod not losing a hull point upon landing, it also cannot be repaired by any means.

Some other immobilised vehicles can be repaired.

So the result, immobilised, is the same. But the complete damage, in total, can be very different.

And in the case that it's different note that they use the word "also" as in "in addition".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
in·clude
   [in-klood] Show IPA
verb (used with object), in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing.
1. to contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element: The package includes the computer, program, disks, and a manual.
2. to place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like.
3. to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor.


The loss of the hull point is a subordinate element, separate from the Immobilized.

Completely ignoring the first definition. Well done.
And the 3rd definition still contains the subordinate element. That doesn't mean it's separate - it's part of it (hence the word "contain").

Fragile wrote:
And there is no ruling saying they are the same either. There is only a specific ruling for DT. We are assuming that it applies elsewhere.

The specific ruling for dangerous terrain was because the rulebook had next to no information (less information than the BT faq has about drop pods) about vehicles being immobilized by dangerous terrain.

With GW adding the errata by including an extra line they did change the rule but they clarified it as well. To put the dangerous terrain test hull point loss ruling in it's own bubble outside of the rest of the rules is ridiculous. To say you must suffer a penetrating/glancing hit to be "damaged" is ridiculous. To say that a vehicle that "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result" is not *damaged* is ridiculous.

The only actual decent argument I've seen from anyone on here is the fact they used the word "has". That can be construed as both past and present tense and in this instance it is difficult to tell which it is because of the context it's being used in. All things being said and done, I wouldn't force this on my opponent. It's a game meant to have fun being played. While it may be fun for me watching them suffer, I'm sure it's not fun for them. I have no doubt it will be ruled otherwise if they ever get around to it, but who really cares about drop pods once they've landed anyway.

I always thought that it was the glancing/penetrating hits that said you lost a hull point not in the actual result itself.

 Leth wrote:
I always thought that it was the glancing/penetrating hits that said you lost a hull point not in the actual result itself.

It is.

It was. It's apparently now taking damage that does it.
Which is not really different. Really.

@rigeld2

No unfortunately I can't provide another possibility of a damage result not connected with a loss of a hullpoint. It was dangerous terrain before the FAQ came out.

But I have an analogy:

General: Someone hits my arm with a club or something similar with enough impact power to (penetrating hit) break my upper arm (-1hp) that means that arm cannot be used anymore. (immobilized)
Failed DTT: I trip over something and fall on my arm (failed test). So I cannot use it anymore. (immobilized) Now the FAQ states, that the arm cannot be used anymore because my upper arm has been broken. (including -1hp)
Drop Pod: I wake up one morning and suddenly can't use my arm. (immobilized)

Now which logical reason do I have to assume, that necessarily my upper arm must have been broken in the night (-1hp)?

I mean it is a possibility but certainly not a necessity.

 Leth wrote:
I always thought that it was the glancing/penetrating hits that said you lost a hull point not in the actual result itself.

Before the FAQ that "was" the only stated way of losing a hull point. Now with the FAQ out and what it says it what has brought up this can of juicy worms. Mostly it's surmising that suffering a vehicle damage result is what brings on the hull point loss. Had GW said dtt was part and parcel to suffering a penetrating hit, then it would be different. As it stands now, we can extrapolate from the decision of the errata that suffering a glance/pen is not the only way.

No, there's no hard and fast wording or ruling stating it applies the same to drop pods, yet, but there is easily a connection and the intent from the errata is clear and there will most likely be a ruling *for* the hull point loss, but saying that means nothing.

Expanding on the similarities of the situations and the relevant information available to us, the conclusion is clear but the consensus is not.

 Kevin949 wrote:
To say that a vehicle that "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result" is not *damaged* is ridiculous.

Its only ridiculous if you forget that your talking about a 5th edition rule. The purpose of which is to describe that the drop pod cannot move after deploying.

Completely ignoring the first definition. Well done.
And the 3rd definition still contains the subordinate element. That doesn't mean it's separate - it's part of it (hence the word "contain").

Im not ignoring 1, your ignoring 3. You were absolute about the meaning of a word that has more than one meaning. How GW meant to use it, who knows. But by clarification, they included a loss of a hull point in a DT test.

 Kevin949 wrote:
the conclusion is clear but the consensus is not.

This is one of the better summations of YMDC threads ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Its only ridiculous if you forget that your talking about a 5th edition rule.

It is a sixth edition rule now. The updates are what the contention is about.
In 5e there were no HP, it was just damaged.
Now damage has a way of being tracked, independent of its effects.

Drop pods have always been damaged upon arrival, according to the rules.

Fragile wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
To say that a vehicle that "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result" is not *damaged* is ridiculous.

Its only ridiculous if you forget that your talking about a 5th edition rule. The purpose of which is to describe that the drop pod cannot move after deploying.

So the BT Errata is a 5th edition rule? Okay, thanks for that.
edit: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420305a_Black_Templars_6th_Ed_V1.pdf shows it's a 6th edition errata, fyi.

Completely ignoring the first definition. Well done.
And the 3rd definition still contains the subordinate element. That doesn't mean it's separate - it's part of it (hence the word "contain").

Im not ignoring 1, your ignoring 3. You were absolute about the meaning of a word that has more than one meaning. How GW meant to use it, who knows. But by clarification, they included a loss of a hull point in a DT test.

I ignored 3? I addressed it in the post you quoted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
@rigeld2

No unfortunately I can't provide another possibility of a damage result not connected with a loss of a hullpoint. It was dangerous terrain before the FAQ came out.

But I have an analogy:

General: Someone hits my arm with a club or something similar with enough impact power to (penetrating hit) break my upper arm (-1hp) that means that arm cannot be used anymore. (immobilized)
Failed DTT: I trip over something and fall on my arm (failed test). So I cannot use it anymore. (immobilized) Now the FAQ states, that the arm cannot be used anymore because my upper arm has been broken. (including -1hp)
Drop Pod: I wake up one morning and suddenly can't use my arm. (immobilized)

Now which logical reason do I have to assume, that necessarily my upper arm must have been broken in the night (-1hp)?

I mean it is a possibility but certainly not a necessity.

In the real word there are other possibilities.
No one has shown an alternate 40k rules possibility aside from the assumption of "It's not that way because."

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
@rigeld2

No unfortunately I can't provide another possibility of a damage result not connected with a loss of a hullpoint. It was dangerous terrain before the FAQ came out.

But I have an analogy:

General: Someone hits my arm with a club or something similar with enough impact power to (penetrating hit) break my upper arm (-1hp) that means that arm cannot be used anymore. (immobilized)
Failed DTT: I trip over something and fall on my arm (failed test). So I cannot use it anymore. (immobilized) Now the FAQ states, that the arm cannot be used anymore because my upper arm has been broken. (including -1hp)
Drop Pod: I wake up one morning and suddenly can't use my arm. (immobilized)

Now which logical reason do I have to assume, that necessarily my upper arm must have been broken in the night (-1hp)?

I mean it is a possibility but certainly not a necessity.

Shouldn't the drop pod entry in that analogy be "I plummet to the earth at colossal speeds and my arm is smashed into the ground"?

 -Nazdreg- wrote:

Drop Pod: I wake up one morning and suddenly can't use my arm. (immobilized)

I immediately pictured the Kids in the Hall song when I read that. . .

Was that just me?


editing to add:
No. . . not Kids in the Hall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfKFV1J7O4s

Again how would deepstriking a Gun Emplacement take a -1HP?? If I were to take a Basalisk or a hydra dun emplacement and deep strike it (which you can do) would they ALSO loose 1 -hp? They are immobile once they hit the board. If they do loose 1 HP that makes absolutly no sence as these weapons are dropped into place by a transport and are designed to do such. I still have yet to see anything that says if you are a deepstriking Imobile vehicle you loose 1 hp for becoming your default Immobilized.

It makes perfect sense, that is why they are all 1 HP higher than was otherwise intended.

Dooley wrote:
Again how would deepstriking a Gun Emplacement take a -1HP?? If I were to take a Basalisk or a hydra dun emplacement and deep strike it (which you can do) would they ALSO loose 1 -hp? They are immobile once they hit the board. If they do loose 1 HP that makes absolutly no sence as these weapons are dropped into place by a transport and are designed to do such. I still have yet to see anything that says if you are a deepstriking Imobile vehicle you loose 1 hp for becoming your default Immobilized.

You're attempting to use fluff to justify rules. You shouldn't.

So answere the question. If I deploy a Basalisk emplacemnet it becomes imobilized. Did it just loose a HP via deployment?

Fortifications do not suffer an immobilized damage result.

See also:
Spods

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Imperial_Guard_Emplacements?filter_reset=1

These are not fortifications. They are unit options you can have in your list. They are imobile vehicles the same way a Drop pod becomes imobile once it is deployed. So while I am stting up my Earth Shaker platform does it loose a hullpoint becasue it becomes Immobilized?

rigeld2 wrote:

Dooley wrote:
Again how would deepstriking a Gun Emplacement take a -1HP?? If I were to take a Basalisk or a hydra dun emplacement and deep strike it (which you can do) would they ALSO loose 1 -hp? They are immobile once they hit the board. If they do loose 1 HP that makes absolutly no sence as these weapons are dropped into place by a transport and are designed to do such. I still have yet to see anything that says if you are a deepstriking Imobile vehicle you loose 1 hp for becoming your default Immobilized.

You're attempting to use fluff to justify rules. You shouldn't.

Using other units that work in similar ways isn't fluff.

If you are going to invent new rules for deep striking pods in lieu of common sense why wouldn't you apply your invented rules to all deep striking vehicles?

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Dooley wrote:
Again how would deepstriking a Gun Emplacement take a -1HP?? If I were to take a Basalisk or a hydra dun emplacement and deep strike it (which you can do) would they ALSO loose 1 -hp? They are immobile once they hit the board. If they do loose 1 HP that makes absolutly no sence as these weapons are dropped into place by a transport and are designed to do such. I still have yet to see anything that says if you are a deepstriking Imobile vehicle you loose 1 hp for becoming your default Immobilized.

You're attempting to use fluff to justify rules. You shouldn't.

Using other units that work in similar ways isn't fluff.

If you are going to invent new rules for deep striking pods in lieu of common sense why wouldn't you apply your invented rules to all deep striking vehicles?

I bolded where he was using fluff to justify rules.
I didn't argue with him.

edit: And I don't have access to the deep striking rules for these units. Are they worded the same as the Drop Pod Errata?

I am not inventing fluff I AM crossing rules however because that is my point. Drop Pods (by fluff design) have retro jets that slow them down just before they hit the ground, they are even modeld on the model. Earth Shaker platforms can be deep struck onto the board. The crossing of rules part is in referance to the fact that there are such things as imobile units ie Earthshaker plate forms Tarantulas etc. Drop Pods would be concidered an imobile unit in the same way as these units previously mentioned. An Earth Shaker platfor does not loose a hull point when you deploy it on the bored so why would a Drop Pod?

Dooley wrote:
I am not inventing fluff I AM crossing rules however because that is my point. Drop Pods (by fluff design) have retro jets that slow them down just before they hit the ground, they are even modeld on the model. Earth Shaker platforms can be deep struck onto the board. The crossing of rules part is in referance to the fact that there are such things as imobile units ie Earthshaker plate forms Tarantulas etc. Drop Pods would be concidered an imobile unit in the same way as these units previously mentioned. An Earth Shaker platfor does not loose a hull point when you deploy it on the bored so why would a Drop Pod?

It depends on what the rules say.
I didn't say you're inventing fluff. I said you were using fluff to justify rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
It depends on what the rules say.

Looking at similar ones (I can only assume) from IA books, the answer is "no". They are immobile, not suffering (or having suffered) an immobilized damage result.

Which is why I mentioned Spods earlier.
There are ways to write the rules the way people seem to be reading them.
That is not the way drop pod rules are written, however.

@rigeld2

In the real word there are other possibilities.
No one has shown an alternate 40k rules possibility aside from the assumption of "It's not that way because."

The rules possibility I would suggest, is, that we just apply what is written under "immobilized" on the vehicle damage table. And frankly I can't see a general "-1hp" there (apart from the -1hp in case it is already immobilized).
The failed DTT works exactly the same (we have to apply what is written under "immobilized" on the vehicle damage table) but we have to include a -1hp into that as well.

Why is it so hard to grasp that there can be a difference between those two events? The similarity is the contents of the paragraph on the table. The difference is the inclusion of -1hp in case of a failed dtt.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
Why is it so hard to grasp that there can be a difference between those two events? The similarity is the contents of the paragraph on the table. The difference is the inclusion of -1hp in case of a failed dtt.

It's not that it's hard to grasp... it's down to a disagreement over whether or not that difference is intended.

The issue being debated is down to the choice of wording in the FAQ. Rigeld's point is that the way the FAQ answer for terrain is worded, the Hull Point loss seems to be assumed to be a part of becoming Immobilised. And if it's a part of becoming Immobilised, then it will apply at any time that a vehicle becomes Immobilised.

I don't know if I entirely agree with that assessment, which is why I've stayed out of that part of the discussion... but I can certainly see where that interpretation is coming from.


The big issue as I see it is that while it's certainly possible for the two rules to work differently... that sort of inconsistency is less than ideal when you're dealing with game rules. Identical effect should have identical outcomes. So if terrain rendering you immobile causes a Hull Point loss despite that not actually being a part of the original rule, anything else that renders you immobile in a similar fashion should have the same result... because any other outcome is inconsistent, and inconsistency leads to confusion.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
@rigeld2

In the real word there are other possibilities.
No one has shown an alternate 40k rules possibility aside from the assumption of "It's not that way because."

The rules possibility I would suggest, is, that we just apply what is written under "immobilized" on the vehicle damage table. And frankly I can't see a general "-1hp" there (apart from the -1hp in case it is already immobilized).
The failed DTT works exactly the same (we have to apply what is written under "immobilized" on the vehicle damage table) but we have to include a -1hp into that as well.

Why is it so hard to grasp that there can be a difference between those two events? The similarity is the contents of the paragraph on the table. The difference is the inclusion of -1hp in case of a failed dtt.

Because you cannot take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It will always include a hull point loss.
If you equate the damage result to any other hull point loss you must equate all of it - including everything it includes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - a 13 page thread that's stayed relatively calm. I'm actually amazed. Thanks everyone for providing a useful, calm discussion.

rigeld2 wrote:
Also - a 13 page thread that's stayed relatively calm. I'm actually amazed. Thanks everyone for providing a useful, calm discussion.

Just for this I must now rant and call everyone Cheaters and TFG and insult their intelligence, and break just about every tenet I can.


jk

rigeld2 wrote:
Because you cannot take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It will always include a hull point loss.

Yes...It, the failed DTT will always include a hull point loss.
But a drop pod landing on the does not fail a DTT, heck it doesn't even take one.
Not unless it lands in difficult or dangerous terrain.
If it did that (land in difficult or dangerous terrain) and it failed the DTT, then it would lose a hull point for failing the DTT and another hull point for getting an immobilised damage result while alread immobilised.

rigeld2 wrote:
Also - a 13 page thread that's stayed relatively calm. I'm actually amazed. Thanks everyone for providing a useful, calm discussion.

This ↑ I agree with 100%.

Because you cannot take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It will always include a hull point loss.

This is what I question. I have the opinion, that I can take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It is in fact worded different from the drop pod rule. So there is a factual written difference. Otherwise the FAQ wouldnt need to address the -1hp would it? The drop pod rule doesnt say anything about -1hp. Nor does the contents of the vehicle damage table. So if we transfer the FAQ-wording to the drop pod rule it means adding something that is not there.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because you cannot take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It will always include a hull point loss.

Yes...It, the failed DTT will always include a hull point loss.
But a drop pod landing on the does not fail a DTT, heck it doesn't even take one.

True, but irrelevant.
I'm not saying he suffers HP damage because the DTT rule says so.
The damage result includes Hp damage. You equate the damage result to the one the pod suffers. And yet you're saying that you can ignore part of that damage result.

I'm not understanding where the disconnect is - if something is included, that means you can't separate it without permission. You must take the entire thing.

It seems like the no-hull-point side is trying to only take part of the damage result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Nazdreg- wrote:

Because you cannot take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It will always include a hull point loss.

This is what I question. I have the opinion, that I can take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It is in fact worded different from the drop pod rule. So there is a factual written difference. Otherwise the FAQ wouldnt need to address the -1hp would it? The drop pod rule doesnt say anything about -1hp. Nor does the contents of the vehicle damage table. So if we transfer the FAQ-wording to the drop pod rule it means adding something that is not there.

A) It's an errata not a FAQ. Minor but important difference. FAQs can change rules, errata always do.
B) the difference, by definition, is included. It's part of the damage result. If you're saying the Hp isn't applied to the drop pod you're saying that the damage results are different, and I'd like you to define what a drop pod Immobilise actually is. Since apparently we can't look at the damage table to see. Or, if you're okay with equating the drop pod to the damage table but not the DTT, then what does a DTT Immobilise do?

If you're saying they're not all 3 equal, you must define the odd one out. No one has been able to yet.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not saying he suffers HP damage because the DTT rule says so.
The damage result includes Hp damage. You equate the damage result to the one the pod suffers. And yet you're saying that you can ignore part of that damage result.

I'm not understanding where the disconnect is - if something is included, that means you can't separate it without permission. You must take the entire thing.

It seems like the no-hull-point side is trying to only take part of the damage result.

This is where we differ. The Immobilised damage result only mentions losing a hull point if an already immobilised vehicle suffers another immobilised damage result.

None of the other damage results mention the loss of a hull point at all.

The DTT rule was errata'd to include losing a hull point upon failing the test making it an additional piece of damage.

That's because without that inclusion, failing a DTT would not include the loss of a hull point.

Look again at the Penetrating Hit rule. "If a penetrating hit was scored, the vehicle not only loses 1 Hull Point, but also suffers additional damage." {emphasis mine}

All of the types of damage on the Vehicle Damage Table specify the damage a vehicle will suffer in addition to losing a hull point after and because of taking a penetrating hit.

It is not that the vehicle takes the damage and then loses a hull point. Or that the damage and the hull point loss are simultaneous. The Penetrating Hit rule even says that if you lose sufficient Hull Points for the vehicle to be wrecked, you still roll on the vehicle damage table because the vehicle might explode. So clearly, the loss of the hull point comes as a result of the Penetrating Hit, not as a result off the vehicle damage.

So if a vehicle can be damaged without taking a penetrating hit, it does not lose a hull point, not by itself, not without a rule that says differently.

That's why the rule for the failed DTT says that the damage is sustained and includes losing a hull point.

The drop pod immobile rule only mentions that the drop pod counts as a vehicle that has suffered the immobilised damge result, but says nothing about including losing a hull point.

You're still saying that the "include" is on the DTT failure. That's demonstrably false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said this is going nowhere. I'll see where TOs end yup ruling locally and hope for an FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

That said this is going nowhere. I'll see where TOs end yup ruling locally and hope for an FAQ.

On this as well, we agree. But it has been a good debate!

Yep that thing needs to be clarified, definitely. From me as well: Good debate!

The Minus 1 HP on vehicles immobilizing or dangerous terrain is a rule specific for the. Drop pods are Immoble due to the vehicle style. No need to faq this or debate it. SERIOUSLY

Lungpickle wrote:
The Minus 1 HP on vehicles immobilizing or dangerous terrain is a rule specific for the. Drop pods are Immoble due to the vehicle style. No need to faq this or debate it. SERIOUSLY

Yeah, no need at all. Except for the fact that I've brought up rules that say they do take damage.
I'll wait for an FAQ, thanks.

Lungpickle wrote:
The Minus 1 HP on vehicles immobilizing or dangerous terrain is a rule specific for the. Drop pods are Immoble due to the vehicle style. No need to faq this or debate it. SERIOUSLY

Simply amazing. This insight has entirely affirmed? confused? read? my opinion.

Immobilize as per damage is entirely different than immobilize as per damage.

...Why would that make any sense ever

That's obviously not how the rules are meant to be played

Please let dead threads rest in peace.