so the book says

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the
battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has
suffered an Immobilised damage result (which cannot be
repaired in any way).

Does that mean it looses a HP from the get-go RAW wise? Of course I wont pull this one anyone, but I was trying to build SM allies for my tau and just noticed that the rules could be interpreted that way. Someone can help me find some way to argue against it should TFG ever try to argue it?

Pg 74. Immobilized. An Immobilized vehicle cannot move * it may not even pivot, but its turret may continue to rotate to select targets, and other weapons retain their normal arcs of fire. Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or a Flyer with locked Velocity (see page 8l) instead remove an additional Hull Point.

That is the Immobilized damage result. Nothing about a hull point in there.

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.

 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.

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.

Good point.
I'd imagine that would be their way of simulating damage, rather than representing an immobilised vehicle. Who knows how a game designers mind works...

Per the new FAQ ruling, I would say so.

Can ya quote me which?

Errata, page 2 of the main rulebook FAQ, 6th item on that page, amending page 71, "Vehicles, Difficult, and Dangerous Terrain".

That is for difficult terrain, not simply landing on the field from DS.

It's an equivalent enough situation, though, where the vehicle is 'damaged' by something other than an enemy attack.

That "counts in all respects as having suffered an immobilized damage result" is also telling. An Immobilized damage result in 6th alway accompanies the loss of a hull point.

Awesome!!

Game Score:
Stupid Rules - 40
Common Sense - Love


Drop pods are what, 1 Hull Point now?

Drop pods only count as being immobilised because they have no way of moving once they land. They don't lose a hull point just for arriving as losing a hull point is the result of a glancing or penetrating hit or a failed dangerous terrain test. The drop pod does not take a glancing/penetrating hit on arrival nor does it take a dangerous terrain test therefore no loss of hull point. Simple.

I don't understand why becoming immobilized from movement takes a HP, but the new FAQ says it does. Given that, I don't understand the argument that Drop Pods that "count as having suffered an immobilized damage result" would not suffer the HP loss as well.

What if it did land in dangerous terrain and failed the test? Second immobilized result, right?

So if a Drop Pod lands into difficult terrain, and rolls a 1, it loses 2 hull points since it now has two immobilize results? I am glad that the Drop Pod has 3 hull points.

There are 2 normal ways to suffer an immobilised result during normal play, both of which come with Hull Point damage:
* Difficult terrain test failure
* Penetrating hit result

The drop pod's rule doesn't mention it is immobilised by either of these, so I don't agree it suffers an automatic hull point loss.

Basically, just because it is immobilised doesn't mean the cause of it was either of the 2 mentioned above.

If the drop pod lands on difficult terrain it would take a dangerous terrain test just as any other deep striking unit. If it failed this test, as it is already immobile, it would lose a hull point. It does not lose a hull point just for arriving on the board.

If it fails the dangerous terrain test, it loses 1 hull point and get an immobilization (per FAQ). Since it is already immobilized, it takes one extra hull point loss. Not that it matters since it has 3 hull points and won't be wrecked.

I agree with edbradder's and Shandara's reasonings.

leohart wrote:
If it fails the dangerous terrain test, it loses 1 hull point and get an immobilization (per FAQ). Since it is already immobilized, it takes one extra hull point loss. Not that it matters since it has 3 hull points and won't be wrecked.

Uhm...well if the drop pod is immobilized on landing and losing 1 hull point, then suffers dangerous terrain failed roll (that is another hull point) and since it is already immobilized that would be a third hull point.

That would not be the case since the Drop Pod becoming immobilized with its special rules doesn't make it lose 1 hull point. Thus, it will only lose at most 2 if it fails the dangerous terrain test.

So you're arguing that "and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result" doesn't mean it also takes a hull point?

Um. What happens when a vehicle suffers an Immobilised damage result? I'm not aware of any way for it to happen that doesn't result in a HP loss.

leohart wrote:
That would not be the case since the Drop Pod becoming immobilized with its special rules doesn't make it lose 1 hull point. Thus, it will only lose at most 2 if it fails the dangerous terrain test.

You're assuming it doesn't lose a hull point for entering the board. While I would agree that it probably wasn't GW's intent for the drop pod to wreck if it deep strikes into terrain and fails it's dangerous test, as it stands at the moment that appears to be the case. Since the wording in the FAQ says it is immobilized exactly as if suffering a vehicle damage result, it would technically include losing a hull point. Though that's also probably the reason the drop pods are 3 hp instead of 2 hp.

I think that is fair. The problem is then do the passengers get a 3" disembark + pinning per the wreckage? Or do they get the 6" disembark and then the Drop Pod is wreck?

In other words, which is more immediate, the disembarkation of the passengers per the Drop Pod special requirement? or, the wreckage of the transport due to difficult terrain.

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".

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're arguing that "and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result" doesn't mean it also takes a hull point?

Um. What happens when a vehicle suffers an Immobilised damage result? I'm not aware of any way for it to happen that doesn't result in a HP loss.

The immobilisation result itself does not remove a hull point, the penetration from a weapon causes the loss of a hull point. Seen as the drop pod has not been penetrated, no hull point loss.

 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.

 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.

 Kevin949 wrote:
It would wreck. 3 at start, 2 on landing, 1 for failing DT test and another 1 since it's already immobilized. Wrecked.

Good point. Shows how much I pay attention to vehicle rules, being a Tyranid player and all...

So... don't land drop pods in dangerous terrain. Got it.

This is simply amazing.

Now you know why you are allowed to drop them empty!

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.

 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.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The FAQ ties a hull point to the immobilized result that vehicles take for failing a Dangerous Terrain Test which resulted in a vehicle damage chart result that includes losing a hull point like any vehicle damage chart result should.

Corrected that for ya.

Double fixed.

My point with wounding was a wound before armor saves from a bolter or lasgun or lascannon invoke different results or effects on the target, they all cause a wound but how that wound is played out is different depending on the circumstances.

Which is not even remotely the same thing.

We're talking about a situation where the exact same effect is being applied. The only difference is the trigger of that effect... all other rules that applied to the situation (prior to the new FAQ) were the same.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Actually, I feel that things will go in the other direction. My suspicion is that they wouldn't nerf a SM only vehicle anymore than it already is from being Oppen topped and immobile. However at the moment, the raw is silly and means it losses a HP from dropping.

If/when it gets faq'ed I'm willing to bet money against it being maintained as the current RAW suggests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Even if people have been suggesting that, its not necessary for this interpretation, "and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has
suffered an Immobilised damage result" is the bit that suggests a HP loss. All respects being the more important part; a HP removal is an aspect of the damage covered by 'all respects'. They didn't say "some respects' or 'most respects'. Poor word choice that results in a stupid RAW, but thats the way it is.

Name one instance of a vehicle taking a damage result and not loosing a hull point; Subsequent arguments about the recent FAQ ruling are only for reinforcement.

In fact, if you look at another item that can enter play via deep strike, you'll notice a particular lack of the damage reference but an inclusion of the immobile status. Tau Drone sentries enter play via deep strike, are immobile and open topped, but do not mention damage with regards to the landing. It mentions it if it happens to scatter (or land purposefully) on top of a vehicle, but not from the landing itself.

Again, I maintain that this isn't RAI, but unfortunately, it seems pretty easy to make the case that this is RAW. My group has already house FAQ'ed against it by the way.

Space Marine drop pods are made to hit the ground and be reused. They have ceramite shielded bottoms. Therefore I say no, it does not take a hull point.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Space Marine drop pods are made to hit the ground and be reused. They have ceramite shielded bottoms. Therefore I say no, it does not take a hull point.

True, but they do crash sometimes.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Space Marine drop pods are made to hit the ground and be reused. They have ceramite shielded bottoms. Therefore I say no, it does not take a hull point.

Fluff arguments work so well...

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Space Marine drop pods are made to hit the ground and be reused. They have ceramite shielded bottoms. Therefore I say no, it does not take a hull point.

Just because it is reusable doesn't mean it won't be damaged by its designed use. The Shuttle was reusable but still required fixing and maintenance after missions, to prevent things like Challenger and Columbia.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Space Marine drop pods are made to hit the ground and be reused. They have ceramite shielded bottoms. Therefore I say no, it does not take a hull point.

Actually take a look at the kit; the bottom is covered in vectored jets and small mechanical parts.

If you are arguing suffering an immoblized result goes hand in hand with losing hull point. Then a penetrating hit which results in an immoblized result will cause you to lose two hull points.

If your already immoblized you'll lose 3 hull points from one shot.

One from a pen hit
One from rolling the immoblized result
One from already being immoblized.

This is stupid, you do not lose a hull point from becoming immoblized unless it is from DT or a pen hit.

When deepstriking, it comes out to three now, apparently.

editing to add:
Ooops, I misread WhoopieMonster's comment as relevant.

No, it is a HP.

How is it not relevant.

The whole basis of this deep strike arguement is that a failed dangerous terrain test results in immobilized, which also results in losing a HP. So ergo, becoming immobilized by any other means, such as a Drop Pod, results in losing a HP.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
How is it not relevant.

The whole basis of this deep strike arguement is that a failed dangerous terrain test results in immobilized, which also results in losing a HP. So ergo, becoming immobilized by any other means, such as a Drop Pod, results in losing a HP.

Following this logic:

I have a Rhino, it suffers 2 penetrating hits, loses 2 hull points.
My opponent rolls a '4' and a '4' on the Vehicle damage table.
The first '4' destroys a weapon, the Rhino's stormbolter.
Now, the second '4' is weapon destroyed. But the Rhino has no more weapons. The rules say if the vehicle has no weapons left, this result is treated as an immobilised result.
So now my Rhino suffers an immobilised result on the vehicle damage table.
By your logic, by suffering this immobilised result, "...becoming immobilized by any other means..." means that my Rhino is not just immobilised, but has lost an additional hull point, so it is now destroyed?

I don't think so. The Rhino is now immobile, and has no weapons, but still has 1 Hull Point remaining.

Suffering an immobilised result on the Vehicle Damage Table does not, in and of itself, result in the loss of a Hull Point.

Correct I have said as much in post 58.

So how does a drop pod lose a Hull Point when it suffers an immobilized result automatically?

WhoopieMonster wrote:
Correct I have said as much in post 58.

So how does a drop pod lose a Hull Point when it suffers an immobilized result automatically?

Ahh! We're arguing from the same side!
Sorry, misunderstood your post. Thought you were saying that a drop pod would lose a hull point upon landing.

Apologies. I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

My point, some what laboured, was if you are suggesting becoming immobilized results in you losing a Hull Point as per the Dangerous Terrain rules is applicable to Drop Pods, then you are also acknowledging that an immobilized roll on the damage chart will result in your vehicle losing another Hull Point.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
Apologies. I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

No worries mate!

WhoopieMonster wrote:
My point, some what laboured, was if you are suggesting becoming immobilized results in you losing a Hull Point as per the Dangerous Terrain rules is applicable to Drop Pods, then you are also acknowledging that an immobilized roll on the damage chart will result in your vehicle losing another Hull Point.

True enough, which was the point I was also trying to make in my example of a Rhino taking 2 hits.

It would be simply enough for GW to have said that:

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, they are immoblised and lose a Hull Point.

But, they didn't!

I find it interesting that Insaniak acknowledges that he is wrong per the RAW, but is arguing for the sake of what he thinks a hypothetical, yet to be released if at all, FAQ will do. The facts are pretty clear here:

An immobilized result from a failed dangerous terrain test

=/=

An immobilized result from deepstriking

There is not a RAW argument at all to support that they are the same and even the RAI argument is shaky as hell for that matter.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I find it interesting that Insaniak acknowledges that he is wrong per the RAW, but is arguing for the sake of what he thinks a hypothetical, yet to be released if at all, FAQ will do. The facts are pretty clear here:

An immobilized result from a failed dangerous terrain test

=/=

An immobilized result from deepstriking

There is not a RAW argument at all to support that they are the same and even the RAI argument is shaky as hell for that matter.

Well RAI I can see them saying that it will lose a hull point, but yes RAW atm, they are ok.

 time wizard wrote:


It would be simply enough for GW to have said that:

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, they are immoblised and lose a Hull Point.

But, they didn't!

The thing about that is that it is still referencing the 5th edition vehicle damage rules.

 time wizard wrote:
Now, the second '4' is weapon destroyed. But the Rhino has no more weapons. The rules say if the vehicle has no weapons left, this result is treated as an immobilised result.
So now my Rhino suffers an immobilised result on the vehicle damage table.
By your logic, by suffering this immobilised result, "...becoming immobilized by any other means..." means that my Rhino is not just immobilised, but has lost an additional hull point, so it is now destroyed?

In this case, you're not taking a weapon destroyed result, so it's just an immobilized result. If you're not already immobilized, that's a total of one hull point - one for the immobilization, and none for the weapon destroyed which didn't happen.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

The thing about that is that it is still referencing the 5th edition vehicle damage rules.

Exactly my point a few posts back.

It is unfortunate that there is no way to point out to GW that this FAQ references rules that no longer exist and as such is in error.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyrian wrote:

 time wizard wrote:
Now, the second '4' is weapon destroyed. But the Rhino has no more weapons. The rules say if the vehicle has no weapons left, this result is treated as an immobilised result.
So now my Rhino suffers an immobilised result on the vehicle damage table.
By your logic, by suffering this immobilised result, "...becoming immobilized by any other means..." means that my Rhino is not just immobilised, but has lost an additional hull point, so it is now destroyed?

In this case, you're not taking a weapon destroyed result, so it's just an immobilized result. If you're not already immobilized, that's a total of one hull point - one for the immobilization, and none for the weapon destroyed which didn't happen.

No, look at the rules.

If the vehicle has no weapons, and suffers a "Weapon Destroyed" result on the Vehicle Damage Table, you instead treat this as an Immobilised result.

If, however, the vehicle is already immobilised, and suffers an additional "Immobilised" result on the Vehicle Damage Table, you don't suffer a "Weapon Destroyed" result, by rule you "...instead remove an additional Hull Point."

So if in my example, my Rhino take 2 penetrating hits, it loses 2 hull points.
If my opponent now rolls a '5' and a '5' on the Vehicle Damage Table, the first '5' results in my Rhino becomming immobilised.
Now, the second '5' results in a further Immobilised result, and since my Rhino is already immobilised, it loses an additional Hull Point and so is wrecked.

When the drop pod touches down, it becomes immobilised. It was not previously immobilised, so it does not lose a hull point at that time.

If, however, the drop pod touches down in difficult terrain, and fails it's dangerous terrain test, it could be argued that it immediately loses 2 hull points.

It becomes immobilised the moment it lands on the table. It is at that point that you roll for the dangerous terrain test.
If it is failed, the drop pod, "...is instantly Immobilised." {rules, page 71}

Now the errata states that:
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”.

So failing the Dangerous Terrain test causes 1 hull point to be lost, and suffering a further immobilised result when immobilised causes an additional Hull Point to be removed.

So a drop pod landing in difficult or dangerous terrain and failing the dangerous terrain test would lose 2 hull points.

But a drop pod landing in the open, would not lose any hull points.

davou wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Even if people have been suggesting that, its not necessary for this interpretation, "and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has
suffered an Immobilised damage result" is the bit that suggests a HP loss. All respects being the more important part; a HP removal is an aspect of the damage covered by 'all respects'. They didn't say "some respects' or 'most respects'. Poor word choice that results in a stupid RAW, but thats the way it is.

Name one instance of a vehicle taking a damage result and not loosing a hull point; Subsequent arguments about the recent FAQ ruling are only for reinforcement.

In fact, if you look at another item that can enter play via deep strike, you'll notice a particular lack of the damage reference but an inclusion of the immobile status. Tau Drone sentries enter play via deep strike, are immobile and open topped, but do not mention damage with regards to the landing. It mentions it if it happens to scatter (or land purposefully) on top of a vehicle, but not from the landing itself.

Something I'm a bit unclear about. Is the resulting loss of an HP due to a Penetrating Hit (i.e., as soon as the AP roll exceeds the target's AV a HP is removed), or is it because of the damage result? Do the rules actually make that distinction? If it's the former then I'm not sure why a Drop Pod would lose a HP when it is initially placed (assuming Dangerous Terrain is not a factor). If it's the later then yes, I'm on board with the HP removal.

-Yad

Yad wrote:
Something I'm a bit unclear about. Is the resulting loss of an HP due to a Penetrating Hit (i.e., as soon as the AP roll exceeds the target's AV a HP is removed), or is it because of the damage result? Do the rules actually make that distinction? If it's the former then I'm not sure why a Drop Pod would lose a HP when it is initially placed (assuming Dangerous Terrain is not a factor). If it's the later then yes, I'm on board with the HP removal.

-Yad

Page 74 of the rulebook.

Glancing hit - vehicle loses a Hull Point.

Penetrating hit - vehicle loses a Hull Point and suffers additional damage from the Vehicle Damage Table.

The only specific time mentioned in the errata where a vehicle would suffer damage without being hit and yet also lose a hull point is in failing a dangerous terrain test.

 time wizard wrote:

Yad wrote:
Something I'm a bit unclear about. Is the resulting loss of an HP due to a Penetrating Hit (i.e., as soon as the AP roll exceeds the target's AV a HP is removed), or is it because of the damage result? Do the rules actually make that distinction? If it's the former then I'm not sure why a Drop Pod would lose a HP when it is initially placed (assuming Dangerous Terrain is not a factor). If it's the later then yes, I'm on board with the HP removal.

-Yad

Page 74 of the rulebook.

Glancing hit - vehicle loses a Hull Point.

Penetrating hit - vehicle loses a Hull Point and suffers additional damage from the Vehicle Damage Table.

The only specific time mentioned in the errata where a vehicle would suffer damage without being hit and yet also lose a hull point is in failing a dangerous terrain test.

Thanks for that

Do the Drop Pod rules say that the Drop Pod suffers a Penetrating Hit?

-Yad

Yad wrote:
Do the Drop Pod rules say that the Drop Pod suffers a Penetrating Hit?

-Yad

No, they only say it counts as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised damage result.

Ok lets break this down one more time:

The FAQ entry talks about what happens when you fail a dangerous terrain test "Immobilized and takes a hull point loss"

The Damage table tells you you are immobilized

THe Drop Pod rules tell you the Drop Pod is Immobilized the moment it hits the ground as per #5 on the damage table.

So nowhere does it say the DP looses a Hull point. Is the DP Immobile, yes, did it fail a dangerous terrain test? NO! The Dangerous terrain FAQ only covers DANGEROUS TERRAIN CHECK FAILURES. It does NOT pertain to landing drop pods for if it did it would be covered under the Drop Pod entry or the Deep striking entry. If you are "thinking" the intent of all immobilized vehicles results in the loss of a HP you are adding biased assumption much in the same way that I am assuming that all the rules are written so that I win. If I do not win that was not the intent of the rules and YOU lose.

time wizard wrote:It is unfortunate that there is no way to point out to GW that this FAQ references rules that no longer exist and as such is in error.

You could always write 'em a letter if it's really bothering you.

time wizard wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
In this case, you're not taking a weapon destroyed result, so it's just an immobilized result. If you're not already immobilized, that's a total of one hull point - one for the immobilization, and none for the weapon destroyed which didn't happen.

If the vehicle has no weapons, and suffers a "Weapon Destroyed" result on the Vehicle Damage Table, you instead treat this as an Immobilised result.

Yeah. That matches up exactly with what I just wrote.

time wizard wrote:If, however, the vehicle is already immobilised, and suffers an additional "Immobilised" result on the Vehicle Damage Table, you don't suffer a "Weapon Destroyed" result, by rule you "...instead remove an additional Hull Point."

So if in my example, my Rhino take 2 penetrating hits, it loses 2 hull points.
If my opponent now rolls a '5' and a '5' on the Vehicle Damage Table, the first '5' results in my Rhino becomming immobilised.
Now, the second '5' results in a further Immobilised result, and since my Rhino is already immobilised, it loses an additional Hull Point and so is wrecked.

That's all correct, but I don't see what it has to do with much of anything else in this thread.

time wizard wrote:When the drop pod touches down, it becomes immobilised. It was not previously immobilised, so it does not lose a hull point at that time.

The contention in this thread is that it loses a hull point inherently for suffering a damage result, both per its own rules and per the dangerous terrain precedent, and not necessarily the additional hull point for taking a second immobilization (although landing in terrain could theoretically trigger that and thereby wreck the pod).

time wizard wrote:If, however, the drop pod touches down in difficult terrain, and fails it's dangerous terrain test, it could be argued that it immediately loses 2 hull points.

"Could be argued"? I think that part is hard to argue with. Is anybody arguing against that?

time wizard wrote:But a drop pod landing in the open, would not lose any hull points.

I've yet to see a convincing argument to that effect. I debunked your prior argument about two weapon destroyed results - you wrote a lot of text not responding to that at all. There are not one, but two solid arguments that landing in the open causes the pod to suffer a hull point with its immobilization. (Argument one is that a Drop Pod becomes immobilized just like it had taken damage, and argument two is that the FAQ for dangerous terrain immobilizations indicates that suffering a hull point is a normal part of becoming immobilized.) In combination, I find them convincing.

Yad wrote:Something I'm a bit unclear about. Is the resulting loss of an HP due to a Penetrating Hit (i.e., as soon as the AP roll exceeds the target's AV a HP is removed), or is it because of the damage result? Do the rules actually make that distinction?

The rules don't do a very good job of making the distinction. By the rulebook alone, I would have said that they are distinct: you lose a hull point, and make a roll on the damage table. But with the FAQ entry for dangerous terrain, they would seem to be naturally linked occurrences.

Dooley wrote:
Ok lets break this down one more time:

The FAQ entry talks about what happens when you fail a dangerous terrain test "Immobilized and takes a hull point loss"

That's not what it says. If you're going to put quotes around something please make sure it's correct. It's been quoted correctly multiple times in this thread.
It "suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point".
I give you $100 including your poker winnings of $65.
How much money did I give you?

THe Drop Pod rules tell you the Drop Pod is Immobilized the moment it hits the ground as per #5 on the damage table.

Again, an incorrect quote.
It "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result"
I don't see the #5 in there - do you?

The Dangerous Terrain FAQ ties a hull point loss to a damage result. It's included. If you take a damage result you must take a hull point.
The Drop Pod is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered a damage result.

You give me $35. $65 was already mine.

rigeld2 wrote:

Dooley wrote:
Ok lets break this down one more time:

The FAQ entry talks about what happens when you fail a dangerous terrain test "Immobilized and takes a hull point loss"

That's not what it says. If you're going to put quotes around something please make sure it's correct. It's been quoted correctly multiple times in this thread.
It "suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point".
I give you $100 including your poker winnings of $65.
How much money did I give you?

THe Drop Pod rules tell you the Drop Pod is Immobilized the moment it hits the ground as per #5 on the damage table.

Again, an incorrect quote.
It "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result"
I don't see the #5 in there - do you?

The Dangerous Terrain FAQ ties a hull point loss to a damage result. It's included. If you take a damage result you must take a hull point.
The Drop Pod is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered a damage result.

You beat me to it. Man, we must be thinking exactly alike or something because I was just about to post up the same thing.

It would appear the entry in the black templar FAQ is more recent than the other ones.

Happyjew wrote:
You give me $35. $65 was already mine.

I give you the immobilize result. The Hull Point was already yours.

Okay, not the best example in the world but not horrible either.

rigeld2 wrote:
The Dangerous Terrain FAQ ties a hull point loss to a damage result. It's included. If you take a damage result you must take a hull point.

It ties a hull point loss to a damage result from failing a dangerous terrain test.
The only condition it specifically addresses is failing that test, nothing else.

rigeld2 wrote:
The Drop Pod is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered a damage result.

It doesn't say treated. It says it "...counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way)."

It does not say or address how the damage result was inflicted, it does not say it counts as a vehicle that suffered a glancing or penetrating hit, it does not say to count it as a vehicle that failed a damgerous terain test.

It [the rule] just says it counts as a vehicle that suffered an Immobilised damage result, and that damage result by itself says the only way to lose a hull point is if the vehicle was already immobilised.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The Dangerous Terrain FAQ ties a hull point loss to a damage result. It's included. If you take a damage result you must take a hull point.

It ties a hull point loss to a damage result from failing a dangerous terrain test.
The only condition it specifically addresses is failing that test, nothing else.

So you're saying the hull point loss isn't included in the immobilize result? It plainly is - the FAQ explicitly says as much.

It doesn't say treated. It says it "...counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way)."

I know that because I quoted it above that line. Counts as is even stronger than treated as.

It [the rule] just says it counts as a vehicle that suffered an Immobilised damage result, and that damage result by itself says the only way to lose a hull point is if the vehicle was already immobilised.

Pre-FAQ I agree with you. With the FAQ that's been released, I don't see a way to avoid tying a hull point loss to an immobilized result (or any damage result).
No, that doesn't mean you take 2 HPs when you take a damage result - you've taken one, and you take the damage result. They're tied together like peas and carrots (note - not serious - Forrest Gump reference)

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're saying the hull point loss isn't included in the immobilize result? It plainly is - the FAQ explicitly says as much.

The Errata explicitly says the loss of a Hull Point is included in a vehicle being immobilised due to a failed dangerous terrain test.

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”.

Nowehere in there does it say that a drop pod arriving on the battlefield suffers an immobilised damage result exactly the same as a failed dangerous terrain test.

You are comparing apples (failed dangerous terrain test) to oranges (drop pods counting as immobilised the moment they touch down).

Because the Space Marine FAQ doesn't say the drop pod "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result" as before, but rather is just says the drop pod "counts as immobilised".

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 this FAQ would now take precedent, and the pods no longer count as suffering a damage result, they simply count as immobilised, and being immobilised alone doesn't lose a hull point.

rigeld2, by your reasoning if I pen your tank you suffer a HP loss. I then role on the damage table and you suffer another HP loss. Damage roles have nothing to do with HP, you determine how much HP damage is done before you do any damage rolls. Even if you limit the HP loss to the immobilized result, you are still suggesting that you will take an additional HP damage for an immobilized result on the damage table following a normal penertrating hit. This is clearly not the case, but this is exactly what your logic will result in.

Except the Drop Pod rules state "in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result"

Each of time_wizard's arguments is worse than the last. Now he's trying to claim that an FAQ which doesn't address something removes that something by dint of not addressing it.

Oh, well, at least it wasn't a circular argument like the rest of that post, just rehashing the point of disagreement.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
rigeld2, by your reasoning if I pen your tank you suffer a HP loss. I then role on the damage table and you suffer another HP loss. Damage roles have nothing to do with HP, you determine how much HP damage is done before you do any damage rolls. Even if you limit the HP loss to the immobilized result, you are still suggesting that you will take an additional HP damage for an immobilized result on the damage table following a normal penertrating hit. This is clearly not the case, but this is exactly what your logic will result in.

Absolutely not and I addressed that in my last post.
If you're making a damage result roll you've lost a hull point.
The Dangerous Terrain FAQ is showing that the loss of a hull point is included in the damage result roll - it's not completely separate. You can have hull points without damage results, but you cannot have a damage result without a hull point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're saying the hull point loss isn't included in the immobilize result? It plainly is - the FAQ explicitly says as much.

The Errata explicitly says the loss of a Hull Point is included in a vehicle being immobilised due to a failed dangerous terrain test.

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”.

No, that's not what it says.
It says that failing a difficult terrain test causes X which includes Y. Not that failing a difficult terrain test causes X and Y. There's a difference there.

Nowehere in there does it say that a drop pod arriving on the battlefield suffers an immobilised damage result exactly the same as a failed dangerous terrain test.

I've never, ever asserted that. Please stop repeating it like it means something.

You are comparing apples (failed dangerous terrain test) to oranges (drop pods counting as immobilised the moment they touch down).

No, I'm comparing an immobilzied result including a hull point to counting as a vehicle suffering an immobilized damage result.

Because the Space Marine FAQ doesn't say the drop pod "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result" as before, but rather is just says the drop pod "counts as immobilised".

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 this FAQ would now take precedent, and the pods no longer count as suffering a damage result, they simply count as immobilised, and being immobilised alone doesn't lose a hull point.

Really?

BT FAQ wrote:Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the
battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered
an Immobilised damage result that cannot be repaired in any
way.

If you're really going to insist that this cross codex unit has different rules depending on the codex when this is errata you're fooling yourself.
You're using a 5th edition FAQ to justify your stance when the 6th edition FAQ has a) removed the question you're citing b) has errated the entry.

Pyrian wrote:
Each of time_wizard's arguments is worse than the last.

High praise indeed! Thank you!

Then I'll not trouble you any futher on this subject.

Counts as immobilized; not counts as failed dangerous terrain test; not counts has receiving a penetrating hit which results in an "immobilized" on the damage chart.

The immobilized does not remove the hull point.

Sorry if this was said already...

 Deuce11 wrote:
Counts as immobilized; not counts as failed dangerous terrain test; not counts has receiving a penetrating hit which results in an "immobilized" on the damage chart.

The immobilized does not remove the hull point.

Sorry if this was said already...

Please read the thread before posting.

Does it deserve a FAQ? Less worthy rules debates have gotten them. I would not expect anyone to demand -1HP.

There's RAW, RAI, and RIP ("Rules in Practice").

You heard it coined here first, folks!

 Deuce11 wrote:
Does it deserve a FAQ? Less worthy rules debates have gotten them. I would not expect anyone to demand -1HP.

There's RAW, RAI, and RIP ("Rules in Practice").

You heard it coined here first, folks!

It's a rules debate, not how anyone would actually play it in a game.
In a game I wouldn't expect them to loose a Hull Point.
Rules wise however it seems them should.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Deuce11 wrote:
Does it deserve a FAQ? Less worthy rules debates have gotten them. I would not expect anyone to demand -1HP.

There's RAW, RAI, and RIP ("Rules in Practice").

You heard it coined here first, folks!

It's a rules debate, not how anyone would actually play it in a game.
In a game I wouldn't expect them to loose a Hull Point.
Rules wise however it seems them should.

Well if the game is not going to be effected by the debate, why waste your time?

Carry on.

 Deuce11 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Deuce11 wrote:
Does it deserve a FAQ? Less worthy rules debates have gotten them. I would not expect anyone to demand -1HP.

There's RAW, RAI, and RIP ("Rules in Practice").

You heard it coined here first, folks!

It's a rules debate, not how anyone would actually play it in a game.
In a game I wouldn't expect them to loose a Hull Point.
Rules wise however it seems them should.

Well if the game is not going to be effected by the debate, why waste your time?

Carry on.

Because of the potential that they will be losing a hull point as the intent is there, and the rules largely back it up. We discuss it so there are no "hey guess what, this happens now" kinds of moments. Plus, as a debate needing an answer the more it is discussed the more chance we have of an official decision from the mouth of the horse.

As it stands now, there's no actual rules backing for them not taking the HP Loss other than "because it doesn't say they do".

What you're saying is like telling UFO enthusiasts "Why debate life on other planets? Is it going to change your tomorrow?" Long and short of it is, you don't know.

 Kevin949 wrote:
As it stands now, there's no actual rules backing for them not taking the HP Loss other than "because it doesn't say they do".

Which is usually a pretty good indicator

But yeah, we debate mostly for the point of debating.

These are apples and these are oranges...

YMDC is a great forum for rules debates and very often it is because different geographic regions play ambiguous rules differently. But in this case NO ONE is going to play a drop pod as one hull point upon entering play. NO ONE.

I am tapping out. Respond if you want.

 Deuce11 wrote:
These are apples and these are oranges...

YMDC is a great forum for rules debates and very often it is because different geographic regions play ambiguous rules differently. But in this case NO ONE is going to play a drop pod as one hull point upon entering play. NO ONE.

I am tapping out. Respond if you want.

One hull point?

You lose one for landing immobilized. Done. 3-1=2.

@rigeld2

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”.

When does a vehicle, as a result of receiving an Immobilised result actually lose a HP?

Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result Immobilized
2nd Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result 2nd Immobilized (1 additional HP Lost)

Is that right? (I don't have my BRB with me right now)

If that's right, then I don't think a Drop Pod would lose 2 HPs if it landed in Dangerous Terrain. Because:

1.) When it landed it didn't suffer a Penetrating Hit so no loss of HP. It is Immobilized, but per the Immobilization rules the first Immobilized does not cost a HP.

2.) It fails the Dangerous Terrain check causing it to be Immobilized again. Per the Immobilization rules this will cost a HP. There still was no Penetrating Hit so no loss from that.

So to me the statement 'including losing one hull point' is just to acknowledge that the Drop Pod has already been immobilized when it landed and this would constitute a 2nd immobilization.

If I'm off on the Immobilization rule then disregard all that as junk

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result Immobilized
2nd Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result 2nd Immobilized (1 additional HP Lost)

Is that right? (I don't have my BRB with me right now)

Yes.

So to me the statement 'including losing one hull point' is just to acknowledge that the Drop Pod has already been immobilized when it landed and this would constitute a 2nd immobilization.

You have your FAQs confused. The "including losing one Hull Point" is in the Dangerous Terrain FAQ, and does not apply soley to the drop pod.

Since you can't immobilize yourself twice on Dangerous Terrain in a single turn this must mean that it's linking the Hull Point loss to the immobilization.

Fragile wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
As it stands now, there's no actual rules backing for them not taking the HP Loss other than "because it doesn't say they do".

Which is usually a pretty good indicator

But yeah, we debate mostly for the point of debating.

In some cases, yes I agree. But the odds are stacked in favor of the drop pod losing a hull point for suffering an immobilized damage result. In every other instance of suffering an immobilized damage result it is accompanied by a hull point loss. Keeping in mind there are only two other instances of this. A pen hit, and a failed DT test. So, other than "it doesn't say you do" why would you think the drop pod is immune when nothing else is?

But still, it does very much require an official ruling. As it stands, I'd suggest discussing it with your opponent or TO.

Just don't be surprised when it's officially decided they do in fact lose the hull point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:
@rigeld2

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”.

When does a vehicle, as a result of receiving an Immobilised result actually lose a HP?

Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result Immobilized
2nd Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result 2nd Immobilized (1 additional HP Lost)

Is that right? (I don't have my BRB with me right now)

If that's right, then I don't think a Drop Pod would lose 2 HPs if it landed in Dangerous Terrain. Because:

1.) When it landed it didn't suffer a Penetrating Hit so no loss of HP. It is Immobilized, but per the Immobilization rules the first Immobilized does not cost a HP.

2.) It fails the Dangerous Terrain check causing it to be Immobilized again. Per the Immobilization rules this will cost a HP. There still was no Penetrating Hit so no loss from that.

So to me the statement 'including losing one hull point' is just to acknowledge that the Drop Pod has already been immobilized when it landed and this would constitute a 2nd immobilization.

If I'm off on the Immobilization rule then disregard all that as junk

-Yad

Regardless to the topic at hand, when the drop pod lands it "is immediately immobilized". So we will assume, for now, that landing doesn't take an HP hit (for the purpose of keeping the drop pod alive in this discussion). You NOW take a dangerous test and if you're unlucky and fail you take 1 hull point of damage and suffer an immobilized result. The drop pod is already immobilized (per the BT faq wording and the nature of the vehicle) and thus suffers an additional hull point loss.

I think you just had your order of operations mixed up.

 time wizard wrote:
It would be simply enough for GW to have said that:

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, they are immoblised and lose a Hull Point.

But, they didn't!

No... because as has been pointed out several times now, the FAQ entry that deals with this is still referring to 5th edition rules, which suggests rather strongly that they overlooked it.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I find it interesting that Insaniak acknowledges that he is wrong per the RAW, but is arguing for the sake of what he thinks a hypothetical, yet to be released if at all, FAQ will do.

Interesting why? RAW isn't the sole basis of a rules discussion. We quite often discuss how we think a rule should be played where the RAW is debatable, or where it seems obvious (if only to some) that the wind will blow a different way to the way the rules seem to be suggesting... which is the case here.

The Drop Pod entry hasn't been updated for 6th edition yet. The Dangerous Terrain ruling very strongly suggests that GW are playing the game with any damage to the vehicle removing a hull point.

So yes, you can claim RAW all you want for now... all I'm saying is, don't get too attached to it. Given the Dangerous Terrain precedent, it would make no sense for GW to not rule that the drop pod loses a hull point on landing, unless they're going to change their minds on the Dangerous Terrain hull point.

The Drop Pod entry *has* been updated for one Codex.
And it lends itself to suffering a HP on landing.

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!

Correct, I am with you sir. Drop pods descend from space but they have complex mechanisms and retrothrusters (read fluff or look at bottom of droppods) yes they hit the ground at harsh speeds but this isn't anything the super powerful technolog of the 41st millennium isn't designed to handle on it's most armored spot. Infact they are considered almost impregnable before opening their arms, these things are used over and over again with little if any repairs needed it only comes from the absurd tech or damage of other armies to really hurt it... again only one when exposed.

I would NEVER try this BS on someone and i am almost ashamed we are considering it here. The Vehicle has a special rule of Immobilized not a damage result it wouldn't inflict the HP until you shoot it, end of story, do not pass go do not collect 200 teef for this absurd idea.

I just want to point out that the loss of a HP In the FAQ everyone keeps quoting says ",including the loss of a hull point"...

If you look at simple grammar rules, the "including" could apply to being because of either the immobilized result or the dangerous terrain test or both. I would argue that given the formation of the sentence that the loss of a HP is just an additional affect from the failed terrain test and not the immobilized result. Bottom line is, all we are doing is arguing what GW intended it to apply to and then inferring that to come to our conclusions...

Many people are saying the simple getting an immobilized result means you lose a HP but that simply does not logically follow and people are not getting this...The loss of a HP is either because of the pen result or failed terrain test and they disregard this and jump to the conclusion that its the immobilized result that makes them lose a HP.

All I am saying is you cannot logically argue that because it is immobilized, it loses a HP, that is non-sequitor.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
Correct, I am with you sir. Drop pods descend from space but they have complex mechanisms and retrothrusters (read fluff or look at bottom of droppods) yes they hit the ground at harsh speeds but this isn't anything the super powerful technolog of the 41st millennium isn't designed to handle on it's most armored spot. Infact they are considered almost impregnable before opening their arms, these things are used over and over again with little if any repairs needed it only comes from the absurd tech or damage of other armies to really hurt it... again only one when exposed.

And yet GW decided to write the rules for it so that it suffers damage automatically upon landing, rather than simply creating a 'Stationary' vehicle type that can't move around the board.

I would NEVER try this BS on someone and i am almost ashamed we are considering it here. The Vehicle has a special rule of Immobilized not a damage result it wouldn't inflict the HP until you shoot it, end of story, do not pass go do not collect 200 teef for this absurd idea.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, people were saying the exact same thing when the pod was originally released back in 4th edition. A number of people argued long and hard that GW surely couldn't have meant for the Drop Pod to automatically count as being damaged on arrival, which at that point in time meant that you handed free Victory Points to your opponent just by having Drop Pods in your army list... right up until GW FAQd it and said that Yes, in fact, that's exactly what they meant.

 mortetvie wrote:
I just want to point out that the loss of a HP In the FAQ everyone keeps quoting says ",including the loss of a hull point"...

If you look at simple grammar rules, the "including" could apply to being because of either the immobilized result or the dangerous terrain test or both. I would argue that given the formation of the sentence that the loss of a HP is just an additional affect from the failed terrain test and not the immobilized result. Bottom line is, all we are doing is arguing what GW intended it to apply to and then inferring that to come to our conclusions...

Many people are saying the simple getting an immobilized result means you lose a HP but that simply does not logically follow and people are not getting this...The loss of a HP is either because of the pen result or failed terrain test and they disregard this and jump to the conclusion that its the immobilized result that makes them lose a HP.

All I am saying is you cannot logically argue that because it is immobilized, it loses a HP, that is non-sequitor.

It's worded that way because if you look at the wording in the rulebook about failing dangerous terrain tests, there is next to nothing in there stating anything beyond "the vehicle is immobilized as per the vehicle damage chart" or some such thing. It's ridiculously vague which is why everyone assumed you didn't lose a hull point (heck, a week prior to the FAQ coming out my friend and I decided the same thing on this exact situation). So they added that word "including" because they had to, to follow proper grammar protocol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
Correct, I am with you sir. Drop pods descend from space but they have complex mechanisms and retrothrusters (read fluff or look at bottom of droppods) yes they hit the ground at harsh speeds but this isn't anything the super powerful technolog of the 41st millennium isn't designed to handle on it's most armored spot. Infact they are considered almost impregnable before opening their arms, these things are used over and over again with little if any repairs needed it only comes from the absurd tech or damage of other armies to really hurt it... again only one when exposed.

And yet GW decided to write the rules for it so that it suffers damage automatically upon landing, rather than simply creating a 'Stationary' vehicle type that can't move around the board.

I would NEVER try this BS on someone and i am almost ashamed we are considering it here. The Vehicle has a special rule of Immobilized not a damage result it wouldn't inflict the HP until you shoot it, end of story, do not pass go do not collect 200 teef for this absurd idea.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, people were saying the exact same thing when the pod was originally released back in 4th edition. A number of people argued long and hard that GW surely couldn't have meant for the Drop Pod to automatically count as being damaged on arrival, which at that point in time meant that you handed free Victory Points to your opponent just by having Drop Pods in your army list... right up until GW FAQd it and said that Yes, in fact, that's exactly what they meant.

For 30 points and near deep-strike-invulnerability, I'd hope there were more drawbacks to them. Hell, I don't even think they should have a gun or PotMS.

 mortetvie wrote:
I just want to point out that the loss of a HP In the FAQ everyone keeps quoting says ",including the loss of a hull point"...

If you look at simple grammar rules, the "including" could apply to being because of either the immobilized result or the dangerous terrain test or both.

No, it can't.
Look at the pre-FAQ dangerous terrain rules. Look at all the rules surrounding dangerous terrain. Do you see anything involving hull points? No. Which means that the only thing that could be including the hull point loss would be the immobilization.

I would argue that given the formation of the sentence that the loss of a HP is just an additional affect from the failed terrain test and not the immobilized result. Bottom line is, all we are doing is arguing what GW intended it to apply to and then inferring that to come to our conclusions...

The proper word to use in that case is "additional". They didn't use that word.

Many people are saying the simple getting an immobilized result means you lose a HP but that simply does not logically follow and people are not getting this...The loss of a HP is either because of the pen result or failed terrain test and they disregard this and jump to the conclusion that its the immobilized result that makes them lose a HP.

All I am saying is you cannot logically argue that because it is immobilized, it loses a HP, that is non-sequitor.

Simple grammar proves you wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
I just want to point out that the loss of a HP In the FAQ everyone keeps quoting says ",including the loss of a hull point"...

If you look at simple grammar rules, the "including" could apply to being because of either the immobilized result or the dangerous terrain test or both.

No, it can't.
Look at the pre-FAQ dangerous terrain rules. Look at all the rules surrounding dangerous terrain. Do you see anything involving hull points? No. Which means that the only thing that could be including the hull point loss would be the immobilization.

I would argue that given the formation of the sentence that the loss of a HP is just an additional affect from the failed terrain test and not the immobilized result. Bottom line is, all we are doing is arguing what GW intended it to apply to and then inferring that to come to our conclusions...

The proper word to use in that case is "additional". They didn't use that word.

Many people are saying the simple getting an immobilized result means you lose a HP but that simply does not logically follow and people are not getting this...The loss of a HP is either because of the pen result or failed terrain test and they disregard this and jump to the conclusion that its the immobilized result that makes them lose a HP.

All I am saying is you cannot logically argue that because it is immobilized, it loses a HP, that is non-sequitor.

Simple grammar proves you wrong.

When you talk about the pre-faq dangerous terrain rules....that doesn't prove your point so I don't see why you bother bringing it up. All that can be inferred from the updated FAQ is that the dangerous terrain test is intended to cause the damage and therefore the HP damage, or the immobilized result is... you can't automatically assume your interpretation is right.

Furthermore... perhaps you can quote the basic grammar rule that makes me wrong?

 insaniak wrote:

 time wizard wrote:
It would be simply enough for GW to have said that:

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, they are immoblised and lose a Hull Point.

But, they didn't!

No... because as has been pointed out several times now, the FAQ entry that deals with this is still referring to 5th edition rules, which suggests rather strongly that they overlooked it.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I find it interesting that Insaniak acknowledges that he is wrong per the RAW, but is arguing for the sake of what he thinks a hypothetical, yet to be released if at all, FAQ will do.

Interesting why? RAW isn't the sole basis of a rules discussion. We quite often discuss how we think a rule should be played where the RAW is debatable, or where it seems obvious (if only to some) that the wind will blow a different way to the way the rules seem to be suggesting... which is the case here.

The Drop Pod entry hasn't been updated for 6th edition yet. The Dangerous Terrain ruling very strongly suggests that GW are playing the game with any damage to the vehicle removing a hull point.

So yes, you can claim RAW all you want for now... all I'm saying is, don't get too attached to it. Given the Dangerous Terrain precedent, it would make no sense for GW to not rule that the drop pod loses a hull point on landing, unless they're going to change their minds on the Dangerous Terrain hull point.

RAW arguments are always based upon the abiguity of a written rule that is open to multiple interpretations, hence the conflict arises. You are basing your argument off the assumption that a FAQ will come along and validate your position.

I could say that due to the nature of the drop pod falling at such a speed to cause damage to itself, that I can place a large blast marker against the edge of the drop pod and anything under the marker suffers a strength 10 ap1 hit, because a FAQ might be coming that says it will.

Now the problem with this method is that you are proposing a hull point loss now based upon assumption that said hull point loss will be validated by a FAQ that does not yet exist or if it ever will for that matter. Even moreso is that other people are then rallying behind your unsubstantiated cause on the basis of a non-existant FAQ that you just have a "hunch" is forthcoming as soon as GW realizes their folly.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
RAW arguments are always based upon the abiguity of a written rule that is open to multiple interpretations, hence the conflict arises.

This happens much less often than people that think RAW is a bad word claim.

Many times people simply mis-read, make assumptions, or are taught incorrectly - and then continue to argue an incorrect point. I know I have.

The fact that the FAQ clarified that losing a hull point is part of being immobilized is an inconvenience to many, for sure.
So was losing EW for Tyranids.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
RAW arguments are always based upon the abiguity of a written rule that is open to multiple interpretations, hence the conflict arises. You are basing your argument off the assumption that a FAQ will come along and validate your position.

I'm not interested in 'validation'. I'm pointing out how I think the game will play for the benefit of anyone who was up in the air about it.

I could say that due to the nature of the drop pod falling at such a speed to cause damage to itself, that I can place a large blast marker against the edge of the drop pod and anything under the marker suffers a strength 10 ap1 hit, because a FAQ might be coming that says it will.

And that would be relevant to the discussion, how?

Making up rules out of whole cloth, and extrapolating a future ruling on an unclear issue based on current established precedence are not the same thing.

Now the problem with this method is that you are proposing a hull point loss now based upon assumption that said hull point loss will be validated by a FAQ that does not yet exist or if it ever will for that matter.

No, I'm proposing a hull point loss based on the fact that GW have ruled that way for another rule that has an otherwise identical effect (and was in fact entirely identical up until it was FAQd).

 kirsanth wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
RAW arguments are always based upon the abiguity of a written rule that is open to multiple interpretations, hence the conflict arises.

This happens much less often than people that think RAW is a bad word claim.

Many times people simply mis-read, make assumptions, or are taught incorrectly - and then continue to argue an incorrect point. I know I have.

The fact that the FAQ clarified that losing a hull point is part of being immobilized is an inconvenience to many, for sure.
So was losing EW for Tyranids.

Just to clarify, you keep ASSUMING they clarified you to lose a HP as part of being immobilized and that simply is not necessarily the case...That is what I keep trying to establish, you cannot automatically assume that it is the immobilized result that causes the loss of the HP based on the language of the FAQ...

it doesn't necessarily follow that an immobilized result causes the loss of a HP. It necessarily follows that an armor pen or failed dangerous terrain test do, however. Simple logic.

 mortetvie wrote:
When you talk about the pre-faq dangerous terrain rules....that doesn't prove your point so I don't see why you bother bringing it up.

If it mentioned hull point damage before it could be read that the DT failure causes the hull point damage and they just moved where the wording is.

All that can be inferred from the updated FAQ is that the dangerous terrain test is intended to cause the damage and therefore the HP damage, or the immobilized result is... you can't automatically assume your interpretation is right.

If A causes B and therefore C, C is a part of B. You can't have B without C.

Furthermore... perhaps you can quote the basic grammar rule that makes me wrong?

"The price for the ticket is $15.75 including sales tax."
The sales tax is included in the $15.75 which is the price. The sales tax is not directly included in the price.
"A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point"
The Hull Point loss is included in the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, not directly in the Dangerous Terrain test.

Include means "Comprise or contain as part of a whole" (if the Oxford dictionary differs, let me know).
So the Hull Point loss is contained as part of a whole in the Vehicle Damage result, since according to the sentence structure that's what includes the HP loss.

You fail to realize that the sales tax arises because of the ticket being sold, not because of the price necessarily so that argument fails.

Also, your logical breakdown is not necessarily correct because you are assuming c is part of B.

And where you talk about include, the problem is what include is referring to, not its definition.

You have not proven anything =/.

 mortetvie wrote:
And where you talk about include, the problem is what include is referring to, not its definition.

Thankfully this is not actually confusing - it is just upsetting.

 kirsanth wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
And where you talk about include, the problem is what include is referring to, not its definition.

Thankfully this is not actually confusing - it is just upsetting.

Upsetting in what way? As I pointed out earlier, it does not necessarily refer to the immobilized result as being the cause of the HP being taken away, it may also be referring to the terrain test. Simply because the terrain test did not refer to the loss of the HP before is no basis for your argument. If anything, they are clarifying that the failed terrain test DOES cause the HP because the terrain test is what causes the immobilized result.

 mortetvie wrote:
You fail to realize that the sales tax arises because of the ticket being sold, not because of the price necessarily so that argument fails.

Break the sentence down.
The sales tax cannot be part of the ticket sold.
The sales tax cannot be part of the price.
The sales tax is part of the $15.75 which is what includes the sales tax.
Argument doesn't fail.

Also, your logical breakdown is not necessarily correct because you are assuming c is part of B.

No, I'm not assuming that - the sentence says that by definition of the word include.

And where you talk about include, the problem is what include is referring to, not its definition.

And the way include is used in this sentence can only be referring to what immediately preceded it. Which is the immobilised damage result.

How about instead of saying I'm wrong if you disagree, you post some support for yourself?
Something to discredit what I've said?
All you're saying right now is "You're wrong." I've backed up what I'm saying with examples and definitions, and cited the FAQs/BRB where required. Please do likewise.

Seriously? You apparently dismiss everything I've written because I disagree with you... I say you are wrong based on simple logical principals. You are basically arguing 1+1=3 and I am trying to use basic math to show you where you are wrong...if you don't want to follow the rules of logic then don't use them please.

Just looking at your example, I said the sales tax only comes into play BECAUSE there is a ticket to be sold in the first place. No ticket means no sales tax, that just logically follows.

Apply that to the FAQ, no dangerous terrain test, or penetration roll, no missing hull point.

 mortetvie wrote:
Seriously? You apparently dismiss everything I've written because I disagree with you...

No, actually - I've taken everything you've written and brought something up to prove it wrong. Not just dismissing you offhand.

I say you are wrong based on simple logical principals. You are basically arguing 1+1=3 and I am trying to use basic math to show you where you are wrong...if you don't want to follow the rules of logic then don't use them please.

Except you haven't proven me wrong based on simple logical principals.

Just looking at your example, I said the sales tax only comes into play BECAUSE there is a ticket to be sold in the first place. No ticket means no sales tax, that just logically follows.

I agree with that.
What you're trying to say, however, is that if I acquire a ticket in a different way (say... a friend buys it and gives it to me) that the sales tax ceases to be included in the $15.75. Which is false.

Apply that to the FAQ, no dangerous terrain test, or penetration roll, no missing hull point.

No. Since the Hull Point is tied to the Immobilise result, any Immobilise result will cause a hull point.

Let's try this:
Do you agree that in the DT Errata the Hull Point damage is tied to the Immobilise result? Ignoring other ways of getting Immobilised or lose hull points - that Errata alone.

No, I believe the loss of the hull point is directly caused by the DT test failure.

Just to point this out... Everyone is arguing about the errata regarding the DT test and what order the hull point loss is applied etc. etc... But... No one has made a good case as to why this should apply to the Drop Pod in the first place. It BEGINS the game Immobalized. It never suffered an immobalization result...

Best case scenario you could argue that before the game began, they were supposed to start with 4 HP, but since someone botched up the job they start with 3 HP and are immobalized, and all of that is included in their profile.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
No, I believe the loss of the hull point is directly caused by the DT test failure.

Exactly... ALL the FAQ says is that failed terrain test (FTT)=immobilized (I) result+loss of HP(HP). You can't say because FTT=I+HP that I=HP, that doesn't make sense logically or mathematically...

 FireBlade wrote:
Just to point this out... Everyone is arguing about the errata regarding the DT test and what order the hull point loss is applied etc. etc... But... No one has made a good case as to why this should apply to the Drop Pod in the first place. It BEGINS the game Immobalized. It never suffered an immobalization result...

Read the BT Errata. If you think it doesn't apply cross codex you're fooling yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mortetvie wrote:

WhoopieMonster wrote:
No, I believe the loss of the hull point is directly caused by the DT test failure.

Exactly... ALL the FAQ says is that failed terrain test (FTT)=immobilized (I) result+loss of HP(HP). You can't say because FTT=I+HP that I=HP, that doesn't make sense logically or mathematically...

I'm not. FTT=I. I=HP+TADR (the actual damage result).
Therefore when you suffer I you suffer HP+TADR.

See that is where you are wrong, you can't say I=HP+TADR because that is not how the FAQ is worded... Your whole premise is based on the assumption that I=HP+TADR so you can't say in conclusion I=HP+TADR.... You are basing your argument on your conclusion.

The failed terrain test causes the immobilized result, including the loss of a HP. You are saying FTT=I and I=HP but that is not supported logically in the FAQ.

Once again, if everyone says the HP is linked and referring to the Immobilized result,then it MUST read to say FTT=I+HP. The comma is basically like a + sign.

 mortetvie wrote:
See that is where you are wrong, you can't say I=HP+TADR because that is not how the FAQ is worded... Your whole premise is based on the assumption that I-HP+TADR so you can't say in conclusion I=HP+TADR.... You are basing your argument on your conclusion.

The failed terrain test causes the immobilized result, including the loss of a HP. You are saying FTT=I and I=HP but that is not supported logically in the FAQ.

In the DTT FAQ it says that the Hull Point is included in the Immobilized damage result.
Therefore I=HP+TADR.
2 includes 1. 2=1+1.


You can't say "The DTTF includes the hull point loss" because a) there's no basis for it b) sentence structure precludes it.

 FireBlade wrote:
Just to point this out... Everyone is arguing about the errata regarding the DT test and what order the hull point loss is applied etc. etc... But... No one has made a good case as to why this should apply to the Drop Pod in the first place. It BEGINS the game Immobalized. It never suffered an immobalization result...

Best case scenario you could argue that before the game began, they were supposed to start with 4 HP, but since someone botched up the job they start with 3 HP and are immobalized, and all of that is included in their profile.

If it begins immobilized then you can't bring it on from reserves and it's destroyed at the end of the game.

No, it's not immobilized at the beginning of the game, it suffers an immobilized vehicle damage result the moment your deep strike is resolved.

If you posit that a drop pod (of all things) is supposed to have the same HP as a monolith or land raider....well I don't know what to think or say without breaking a tenet.

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
See that is where you are wrong, you can't say I=HP+TADR because that is not how the FAQ is worded... Your whole premise is based on the assumption that I-HP+TADR so you can't say in conclusion I=HP+TADR.... You are basing your argument on your conclusion.

The failed terrain test causes the immobilized result, including the loss of a HP. You are saying FTT=I and I=HP but that is not supported logically in the FAQ.

In the DTT FAQ it says that the Hull Point is included in the Immobilized damage result.
Therefore I=HP+TADR.
2 includes 1. 2=1+1.


You can't say "The DTTF includes the hull point loss" because a) there's no basis for it b) sentence structure precludes it.

Where you say the HP is included in the immobilized result, that is where you are reading into it and assuming this. That is what my contention is in this whole thread. You have no logical basis for concluding that the immobilized CAUSES the HP or that a HP is the natural or direct result of the Immobilized result. How can you guys not see this?

 mortetvie wrote:
Where you say the HP is included in the immobilized result, that is where you are reading into it and assuming this. That is what my contention is in this whole thread. You have no logical basis for concluding that the immobilized CAUSES the HP or that a HP is the natural or direct result of the Immobilized result. How can you guys not see this?

I absolutely have a logical basis.
The DTT Errata tells me that the HP is included in the immobilised result. Basic sentence structure says that.

I find it funny people are throwing the word "logic" around while both are committing egregious logical fallacies

It is pretty clear from RAW, that no such HP loss occurs. Let's now consider RAI for a minute. Is the Drop Pod intended to lose a hull point? I'm not so sure. Since there is no other way to deploy a drop pod, wouldn't it be more reasonable for GW to simply errata its entry to simply state: "The Drop Pod is immobile after arriving from Deep Strike." and have the drop pod start with 2 hull points? What possible reason could they have for creating a convoluted application of various rules?

jms40k wrote:
I find it funny people are throwing the word "logic" around while both are committing egregious logical fallacies

Point them out?

It is pretty clear from RAW, that no such HP loss occurs.

Obviously not. Would you mind responding to what I've said?

Let's now consider RAI for a minute. Is the Drop Pod intended to lose a hull point? I'm not so sure. Since there is no other way to deploy a drop pod, wouldn't it be more reasonable for GW to simply errata its entry to simply state: "The Drop Pod is immobile after arriving from Deep Strike." and have the drop pod start with 2 hull points? What possible reason could they have for creating a convoluted application of various rules?

Does it matter what the reason is? Are you going to pretend this is the most convoluted thing they've done?

jms40k wrote:
I find it funny people are throwing the word "logic" around while both are committing egregious logical fallacies

It is pretty clear from RAW, that no such HP loss occurs. Let's now consider RAI for a minute. Is the Drop Pod intended to lose a hull point? I'm not so sure. Since there is no other way to deploy a drop pod, wouldn't it be more reasonable for GW to simply errata its entry to simply state: "The Drop Pod is immobile after arriving from Deep Strike." and have the drop pod start with 2 hull points? What possible reason could they have for creating a convoluted application of various rules?

You say that so emphatically as if you've decided and that's that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Where you say the HP is included in the immobilized result, that is where you are reading into it and assuming this. That is what my contention is in this whole thread. You have no logical basis for concluding that the immobilized CAUSES the HP or that a HP is the natural or direct result of the Immobilized result. How can you guys not see this?

I absolutely have a logical basis.
The DTT Errata tells me that the HP is included in the immobilised result. Basic sentence structure says that.

You don't realize that the HP is included WITH the result not IN it. The HP occurs BECAUSE of the failed terrain test not BECAUSE of the immobilizes result. You are twisting the sentence to read how you want.

 mortetvie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Where you say the HP is included in the immobilized result, that is where you are reading into it and assuming this. That is what my contention is in this whole thread. You have no logical basis for concluding that the immobilized CAUSES the HP or that a HP is the natural or direct result of the Immobilized result. How can you guys not see this?

I absolutely have a logical basis.
The DTT Errata tells me that the HP is included in the immobilised result. Basic sentence structure says that.

You don't realize that the HP is included WITH the result not IN it. The HP occurs BECAUSE of the failed terrain test not BECAUSE of the immobilizes result. You are twisting the sentence to read how you want.

You're asserting that the HP is included with the DTT. The sentence doesnt read that way.

 mortetvie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Where you say the HP is included in the immobilized result, that is where you are reading into it and assuming this. That is what my contention is in this whole thread. You have no logical basis for concluding that the immobilized CAUSES the HP or that a HP is the natural or direct result of the Immobilized result. How can you guys not see this?

I absolutely have a logical basis.
The DTT Errata tells me that the HP is included in the immobilised result. Basic sentence structure says that.

You don't realize that the HP is included WITH the result not IN it. The HP occurs BECAUSE of the failed terrain test not BECAUSE of the immobilizes result. You are twisting the sentence to read how you want.

No he isn't. The sentence is "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point."
The sentence structure clearly shows that losing the hull point is an effect of suffering an immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table.

If losing a hull point were part of failing the dangerous terrain test separate to the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table it would read "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately loses a hull point and suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table."

It does not and so therefore losing the Hull Point is a part of the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table.

If you look at the change from the original, sentence, they are simply clarifying and adding on the fact that the failed terrain test causes a HP worth of damage in addition to the immobilized result. It always caused an immobilized result, the clarification was that the failed test also causes the HP loss. The whole question is what is the effect of the dangerous terrain test on the vehicle? Immobilized and loss of a HP.

IS the FAQ addressing if the immobilized result causes the HP? No, it is not, it is focusing on the terrain test being failed. Therefore, that is all you can get out of this sentence.

Does the vehicle suffer a hull point also because it is immobilized? If yes, then you guys are right. If the bigger question is does it suffer a hull point because it is immobilize from a dangerous terrain test, then the focus should be on the loss of the HP because of the terrain test, not immobilized result.

jms40k wrote:
Since there is no other way to deploy a drop pod, wouldn't it be more reasonable for GW to simply errata its entry to simply state: "The Drop Pod is immobile after arriving from Deep Strike." and have the drop pod start with 2 hull points? What possible reason could they have for creating a convoluted application of various rules?

How is it convoluted? The Drop Pod is deploye damaged. When a vehicle is damaged, it loses a Hull Point. Not really that complicated.

Assuming that it loses a Hull Point on deployment is no more unreasonable than the fact that it deploys damaged in the first place... which is how it has functioned for 3 editions now. The only thing that has changed is the addition of Hull Points to the damage process.

 mortetvie wrote:
If you look at the change from the original, sentence, they are simply clarifying and adding on the fact that the failed terrain test causes a HP worth of damage in addition to the immobilized result. It always caused an immobilized result, the clarification was that the failed test also causes the HP loss. The whole question is what is the effect of the dangerous terrain test on the vehicle? Immobilized and loss of a HP.

IS the FAQ addressing if the immobilized result causes the HP? No, it is not, it is focusing on the terrain test being failed. Therefore, that is all you can get out of this sentence.

Does the vehicle suffer a hull point also because it is immobilized? If yes, then you guys are right. If the bigger question is does it suffer a hull point because it is immobilize from a dangerous terrain test, then the focus should be on the loss of the HP because of the terrain test, not immobilized result.

It's not additional. If it was they'd use the word additional. That's not the word they used. They used including.
And it's an errata, not an FAQ, so it's a change of rules.

 mortetvie wrote:
If you look at the change from the original, sentence, they are simply clarifying and adding on the fact that the failed terrain test causes a HP worth of damage in addition to the immobilized result. It always caused an immobilized result, the clarification was that the failed test also causes the HP loss. The whole question is what is the effect of the dangerous terrain test on the vehicle? Immobilized and loss of a HP.

IS the FAQ addressing if the immobilized result causes the HP? No, it is not, it is focusing on the terrain test being failed. Therefore, that is all you can get out of this sentence.

Does the vehicle suffer a hull point also because it is immobilized? If yes, then you guys are right. If the bigger question is does it suffer a hull point because it is immobilize from a dangerous terrain test, then the focus should be on the loss of the HP because of the terrain test, not immobilized result.

Wrong. Please re-read my post. If the hull point were in addition to the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table then it would not be worded as it is. Its current structure indicates that the hull point loss is included in the effect of suffering an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table.

Also, re-read the Vehicle Damage table, specifically the Immobilised result.

Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle instead remove an additional Hull Point.

Notice the word additional. Why is it there? If suffering an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table does not already directly cause the loss of a Hull Point then it is not needed, since there wasn't an original hull point loss from rolling an Immobilised result for the second hull point loss to be in addition to. If the hull point were not a part of suffering an Immobilised result then the rule could just say:

Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle instead remove a Hull Point.

Malus,the immobilized result only causes you to lose an additional HP if it was previously immobilized, so looking at the actual result itself doesn't add you your argument at all.

Seriously, this is coming down to a he said she said thing and rather than rehashing everything over and over again for people who don't want to agree I'm just going to wait for the FAQ and go from there.

Again, all I was saying is that you can't say it suffers a HP BECAUSE of the immobilized result. Only because of the dangerous terrain test which causes the immobilized result based on the language there.

Anything else is reading into the sentence or drawing an inference from another place. That much is plainly evident so I don't need to try to keep trying to convince someone that 1+1=2 when they are not willing to see the obvious.

RAW=HP loss is because of the failed terrain test, that is all I am arguing and maintaining. You guys are saying immobilized=hp loss and that is not RAW. Your only line of logic is that because the immobilized result from a pen roll and now a failed dangerous terrain test are linked with the loss of a HP, a deepstriking drop pod that is immobilized should also lose a HP and that doesn't necessarily follow.

 mortetvie wrote:
Malus,the immobilized result only causes you to lose an additional HP if it was previously immobilized, so looking at the actual result itself doesn't add you your argument at all.

Seriously, this is coming down to a he said she said thing and rather than rehashing everything over and over again for people who don't want to agree I'm just going to wait for the FAQ and go from there.

Again, all I was saying is that you can't say it suffers a HP BECAUSE of the immobilized result. Only because of the dangerous terrain test which causes the immobilized result based on the language there.

Anything else is reading into the sentence or drawing an inference from another place. That much is plainly evident so I don't need to try to keep trying to convince someone that 1+1=2 when they are not willing to see the obvious.

RAW=HP loss is because of the failed terrain test, that is all I am arguing and maintaining. You guys are saying immobilized=hp loss and that is not RAW.

Regarding your last sentence: If that's what you think we're saying then you haven't been paying attention. The damage outcome DOES NOT MATTER, the fact the vehicle suffered a damage result is what causes the HP loss. If the drop pod rules said it came into play as a stunned vehicle exactly as if suffering the result from the vehicle damage table, I'd still be saying the same thing.

If they wanted to, GW could just say that drop pods can never move more than 0 inches after deep striking.

 mortetvie wrote:
Malus,the immobilized result only causes you to lose an additional HP if it was previously immobilized, so looking at the actual result itself doesn't add you your argument at all.

Yes it does. If suffering an Immobilised result does not cause you to lose a Hull Point then how can you lose an additional one for suffering an Immobilised result when you are already Immobilised? You aren't suffering an additional Hull Point loss, you're just suffering a Hull Point loss.

Malus, the initial immobilized result does not cause the HP, it is the fact that you rolled a penetrating hit on the vehicle, regardless of immobilized result. If a subsequent result is rolled, then and only then does it cause the loss of an additional HP.

There is a good argument in that any damaged vehicle loses a HP but I think the main thing is that in this particular case, it has not been clarified if it should lose a HP for being immobilized when it deepstrikes or not, so therefore you can't say "because a vehicle suffers a HP from failed terrain tests or penetrating hits that it should for being damaged in some other way".

If anything, the player base can be a form of judiciary, they can interpret rules and so on as best as they can, but they should not extend the meaning of certain rules, that should be left to the legislature, which is GW. We must know their intent and we don't have that ATM. We need to wait for the FAQ to make the call you guys are proposing to make.

 mortetvie wrote:
Malus, the initial immobilized result does not cause the HP, it is the fact that you rolled a penetrating hit on the vehicle, regardless of immobilized result. If a subsequent result is rolled, then and only then does it cause the loss of an additional HP.

There is a good argument in that any damaged vehicle loses a HP but I think the main thing is that in this particular case, it has not been clarified if it should lose a HP for being immobilized when it deepstrikes or not, so therefore you can't say "because a vehicle suffers a HP from failed terrain tests or penetrating hits that it should for being damaged in some other way".

If anything, the player base can be a form of judiciary, they can interpret rules and so on as best as they can, but they should not extend the meaning of certain rules, that should be left to the legislature, which is GW. We must know their intent and we don't have that ATM. We need to wait for the FAQ to make the call you guys are proposing to make.

If you want to discuss intent go ahead.
2=1+1. If I give you 2, is 1 included?

rigeld2 wrote:

jms40k wrote:
I find it funny people are throwing the word "logic" around while both are committing egregious logical fallacies

Point them out?

Meant to be taken toungue-in-cheek. Once logic is brought up, things can get pretty pedantic. If you want a few specifics:

1.) There is a causation fallacy that arises when people start making the claim that "because Y is included (or present) whenever there is X, X must cause Y." Just because two examples of an immobilized result otherwise "include" hull point damage does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that immobilization causes hull point damage.

2.) Just because someone does not think an argument is logically valid, does not make the conclusion of that argument wrong.

Kevin949 wrote:
You say that so emphatically as if you've decided and that's that.

I have decided based on the fact that, RAW, it does not say "When a drop pod deploys, it loses a hull point," anywhere. Many of the individuals in this very thread have agreed, even if they think that RAI, a hull point should be lost.

Insaniak wrote:
How is it convoluted? The Drop Pod is deploye damaged.

Because there is no reason to have the drop pod deployed damaged whatsoever. If it is designed to remove a hull point, why start with that many hull points to begin with? Why not start with less and deploy with the simple extra rule that it is deployed immobile? There would be no way to avoid this type of deployment anyway.

jms40k wrote:
1.) There is a causation fallacy that arises when people start making the claim that "because Y is included (or present) whenever there is X, X must cause Y." Just because two examples of an immobilized result otherwise "include" hull point damage does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that immobilization causes hull point damage.

Despite the fact that the rule literally says that the hull point damage is included?

I'm not making a leap of logic, I'm reading the words GW wrote.

Meant to be taken toungue-in-cheek. Once logic is brought up, things can get pretty pedantic. If you want a few specifics:

1.) There is a causation fallacy that arises when people start making the claim that "because Y is included (or present) whenever there is X, X must cause Y." Just because two examples of an immobilized result otherwise "include" hull point damage does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that immobilization causes hull point damage.

2.) Just because someone does not think an argument is logically valid, does not make the conclusion of that argument wrong.

This is what I've been saying all along. I was just attacking the way they got to their conclusion; that what they were arguing did not necessarily follow from the evidence.

You guys ARE making a leap of logic by saying just because a hull point is lost in these circumstances, it must also be lost in this one. It does not necessarily follow that just because you suffer a damage result on the table that you lose a hull point. The source of the result is important as well and you can't rule that out of the equation, which you are.

So there are times when 2 will not include 1?

Using English how can you attach the "including the loss of a Hull Point" to anything in that sentence other than the immobilize result?

rigeld2 wrote:

jms40k wrote:
1.) There is a causation fallacy that arises when people start making the claim that "because Y is included (or present) whenever there is X, X must cause Y." Just because two examples of an immobilized result otherwise "include" hull point damage does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that immobilization causes hull point damage.

Despite the fact that the rule literally says that the hull point damage is included?

I'm not making a leap of logic, I'm reading the words GW wrote.

Nope, it includes the hull point damage then. There is no GW phrase that says: "Immobilization causes hull point damage." I understand your logic, and it may very well be what GW meant; that's the problem with language. I was just tongue-in-cheek arguing "logically"

No, but there is a phrase that says you suffer an immobilization result, including the hull point damage.

I'm still at a loss trying to figure out how that means anything but that an Immob. Damage Result includes a Hull Point loss.

jms40k wrote:
Because there is no reason to have the drop pod deployed damaged whatsoever.

And yet it does deploy damaged, and has done since it was introduced in 4th edition.

If it is designed to remove a hull point, why start with that many hull points to begin with? Why not start with less and deploy with the simple extra rule that it is deployed immobile?

Because doing it this way doesn't require an extra rule. You give the Pod one more Hull point than it needs, and just treat it as suffering an Immobilised result when you deploy it.

GW could have introduced a 'Stationary' vehicle class, and rules as to how it works. Instead, they just gave the pod an immediate Immobilised result.

In 4th edition, that meant that each Pod in your army automatically awarded half its cost to your opponent in Victory Points.
In 5th edition it meant that a further Immobilised result took the weapon off, and so meant that at least a third of the time the Pod could weather one less Penetration than other vehicles.
In 6th edition, it means (or at least, I very, very strongly suspect that it will mean) that the Pod automatically loses a Hull point on deployment, because damage to vehicles means dropping a Hull point. Which is only a problem if you view it as an unintentional nerf, rather than simply a part of the design of the vehicle. The Pod has always been damaged on deployment... it's simply the specific effects of this that have changed between edition.

rigeld2 wrote:
So there are times when 2 will not include 1?

Using English how can you attach the "including the loss of a Hull Point" to anything in that sentence other than the immobilize result?

Using English, how can you disregard the fact that the immobilized result and subsequent HP damage comes from the failed terrain test? That is the difference, what causes the damage result determines if there is a HP loss or not as far as RAW. There is nothing that says an immobilized result regardless of source causes the loss of a HP. Conversely, there is nothing that says any roll on the damage chart causes the loss of a HP. Therefore you can't say immobilized=loss of hull point in and of itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

jms40k wrote:
Because there is no reason to have the drop pod deployed damaged whatsoever.

And yet it does deploy damaged, and has done since it was introduced in 4th edition.

If it is designed to remove a hull point, why start with that many hull points to begin with? Why not start with less and deploy with the simple extra rule that it is deployed immobile?

Because doing it this way doesn't require an extra rule. You give the Pod one more Hull point than it needs, and just treat it as suffering an Immobilised result when you deploy it.

GW could have introduced a 'Stationary' vehicle class, and rules as to how it works. Instead, they just gave the pod an immediate Immobilised result.

In 4th edition, that meant that each Pod in your army automatically awarded half its cost to your opponent in Victory Points.
In 5th edition it meant that a further Immobilised result took the weapon off.
In 6th edition, it means (or at least, I very, very strongly suspect that it will mean) that the Pod automatically loses a Hull point on deployment, because damage to vehicles means dropping a Hull point. Which is only a problem if you view it as an unintentional nerf, rather than simply a part of the design of the vehicle. The Pod has always been damaged on deployment... it's simply the specific effects of this that have changed between edition.

You and I are arguing about two completely different things here. I'm not even disagreeing with you, I'm just saying strictly RAW, you can't draw the conclusion you are.

 insaniak wrote:

jms40k wrote:
Because there is no reason to have the drop pod deployed damaged whatsoever.

And yet it does deploy damaged, and has done since it was introduced in 4th edition.

If it is designed to remove a hull point, why start with that many hull points to begin with? Why not start with less and deploy with the simple extra rule that it is deployed immobile?

Because doing it this way doesn't require an extra rule. You give the Pod one more Hull point than it needs, and just treat it as suffering an Immobilised result when you deploy it.

GW could have introduced a 'Stationary' vehicle class, and rules as to how it works. Instead, they just gave the pod an immediate Immobilised result.

In 4th edition, that meant that each Pod in your army automatically awarded half its cost to your opponent in Victory Points.
In 5th edition it meant that a further Immobilised result took the weapon off, and so meant that at least a third of the time the Pod could weather one less Penetration than other vehicles.
In 6th edition, it means (or at least, I very, very strongly suspect that it will mean) that the Pod automatically loses a Hull point on deployment, because damage to vehicles means dropping a Hull point. Which is only a problem if you view it as an unintentional nerf, rather than simply a part of the design of the vehicle. The Pod has always been damaged on deployment... it's simply the specific effects of this that have changed between edition.

You may be right, and I'm not saying that GW has ever done "simple rules are better." It just seems like a very round-about way of doing things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I might also add that they did create a new rule to handle this situation:

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the
battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered
an Immobilised damage result that cannot be repaired in any
way

It could simply be:

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the battle. This effect cannot be removed in any way.

and then just have one less hull point on the reference tables .

jms40k wrote:
It could simply be:

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the battle. This effect cannot be removed in any way.

and then just have one less hull point on the reference tables .

And then what happens when you roll an immobilised result on the damage table?

 mortetvie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So there are times when 2 will not include 1?

Using English how can you attach the "including the loss of a Hull Point" to anything in that sentence other than the immobilize result?

Using English, how can you disregard the fact that the immobilized result and subsequent HP damage comes from the failed terrain test? That is the difference, what causes the damage result determines if there is a HP loss or not as far as RAW. There is nothing that says an immobilized result regardless of source causes the loss of a HP. Conversely, there is nothing that says any roll on the damage chart causes the loss of a HP. Therefore you can't say immobilized=loss of hull point in and of itself.

A) The immobilized result can only be equal to the result of rolling a 5 on the damage result chart. We know this because it's referred to as a Damage Result, and there's no other way to know what it means without looking there. So we know this Immobilise isn't special.

B )We also know that this immobilize includes a Hull Point loss.

C) We also know that a drop pod counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilization result.

D) the damage result for Immob on rolling a 5.

C = D = A = B therefore C = B.

It's all the same immobilize - you're trying to treat the DTT one as special with nothing implying it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

jms40k wrote:
It could simply be:

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the battle. This effect cannot be removed in any way.

and then just have one less hull point on the reference tables .

And then what happens when you roll an immobilised result on the damage table?

And even then - it could be. But it isn't.

 insaniak wrote:

jms40k wrote:
It could simply be:

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the battle. This effect cannot be removed in any way.

and then just have one less hull point on the reference tables .

And then what happens when you roll an immobilised result on the damage table?

Nuh-uh, you can't argue for the english language interpretation and then disregard it later . If you want to interpret "including..." to mean that it is always included, you can easily read "already immobilized" to include immobile .

All I'm saying is that relying on damage results to cause things to be immobile seems like the long way around.

Rigeld...

Your reasoning is all off here dude, you don't get immobilized result ONLY from rolling a 5 on the table. You also get it from failed terrain tests which no roll is made. Also, the HP damage from any penetration roll happens BECAUSE of the penetration roll itself, not necessarily any result in and of itself.

So your a=b=c... is a big logical fallacy because a does not NECESSARILY equal b, but it COULD equal b... big difference. You are saying something could equal something else therefore it does and that is what I am trying to point out.

rigeld2 wrote:
[
And even then - it could be. But it isn't.

Yep, you're right. And so the debate continues. It could also say "every time a vehicle is immobilized, it suffers a hull point loss." But it doesn't. Neither does this:

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”

Necessitate that interpretation. If they are trying to clarify that immobilized results always lead to a hull point loss, regardless of their source (pen, DTT, drop pod assault, etc.), this was the wrong place to errata it in.

 mortetvie wrote:
Your reasoning is all off here dude, you don't get immobilized result ONLY from rolling a 5 on the table. You also get it from failed terrain tests which no roll is made. Also, the HP damage from any penetration roll happens BECAUSE of the penetration roll itself, not necessarily any result in and of itself.

The immobilized result from a DTT must be the same as the one when rolling a 5 for pen. Do you agree?

jms40k wrote:
Nuh-uh, you can't argue for the english language interpretation and then disregard it later . If you want to interpret "including..." to mean that it is always included, you can easily read "already immobilized" to include immobile

Sorry, but... what...?

I suspect that you're confusing my posts with someone else's.

ll I'm saying is that relying on damage results to cause things to be immobile seems like the long way around.

Potentially... but it's how the pod has always worked. Or at least, for as long as it has been a physical unit, rather than just a way of deep striking Marines (which is how it started out).

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Your reasoning is all off here dude, you don't get immobilized result ONLY from rolling a 5 on the table. You also get it from failed terrain tests which no roll is made. Also, the HP damage from any penetration roll happens BECAUSE of the penetration roll itself, not necessarily any result in and of itself.

The immobilized result from a DTT must be the same as the one when rolling a 5 for pen. Do you agree?

Yes, but all the immobilized result says is that the vehicle can't move, not that it suffers a HP. What I don't agree with is that because an immobilized result from a DTT and penetrating roll cause the loss of a HP, an immobilized result from a drop pod entering play must also cause the loss of a HP. This latter distinction does not necessarily follow which is what you don't understand. This is because the loss of the HP comes from the failed terrain test or penetrating hit which you conveniently fail to address in your reasoning.

 mortetvie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Your reasoning is all off here dude, you don't get immobilized result ONLY from rolling a 5 on the table. You also get it from failed terrain tests which no roll is made. Also, the HP damage from any penetration roll happens BECAUSE of the penetration roll itself, not necessarily any result in and of itself.

The immobilized result from a DTT must be the same as the one when rolling a 5 for pen. Do you agree?

Yes,

Do you agree that, at least in the DTT errata, the Hull Point loss is included in the Immobilise damage result?

but all the immobilized result says is that the vehicle can't move, not that it suffers a HP. What I don't agree with is that because an immobilized result from a DTT and penetrating roll cause the loss of a HP, an immobilized result from a drop pod entering play must also cause the loss of a HP. This latter distinction does not necessarily follow which is what you don't understand. This is because the loss of the HP comes from the failed terrain test or penetrating hit which you conveniently fail to address in your reasoning.

You're still trying to say the Hp loss is included in the DTT failure when it is impossible to read the sentence that way.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, re-read the Vehicle Damage table, specifically the Immobilised result.

Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle instead remove an additional Hull Point.

Notice the word additional.

That is a good catch too, nice.



I feel bad for missing this now.

I'm just going to facepalm and see myself out of this debate...

It's degenerated to people to using their conclusion as the basis for their argument rather than actually proving their conclusion.

The argument that an immobilized result causes a HP is based on a logical fallacy, plain and simple.

"affirming the consequent -- A fallacy of the form "if A, then B; B, therefore A". Example: "If Smith testifies against Jones in court, Jones will be found guilty. Jones was found guilty. Therefore, Smith must have testified against him." {Jones could have been found guilty without Smith's testimony.} "
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/logical%20fallacies.htm#affirm-consequent

In this example, you guys are saying:
if a vehicle suffered a penetrating hit with an immobilized result, it suffers a HP.
If a vehicle fails a dangerous terrain test and becomes immobilized, it suffers a HP
therefore:
A vehicle suffers an immobilized result, therefore it must also lose a HP.

Just because the loss of a HP comes in conjunction with an immobilized result in the first 2 examples does not mean it ALWAYS comes in conjunction with an immobilized result.

Then you haven't understood what I've said at all. Congratulations.

*I re-phrase* : I understand the logic and your conclusions, but going further, this logic will also leads to " Any rules resulting to shaking/stunning/weapon destroyed includes the loss of a Hull Point" as well, since they are also valid results of the damage table.

Not sure about exact codex / BRB rules wordings but as far as I remember
- once you fire a one-shot missile, afterwards it is considered as a 'weapon destroyed'
- if your mekboy roll "1" on the repair roll, the vehicule is shaken? ( stunned ?)

In these cases, the vehicule loses a Hull Point ? I doubt so.
(OK, my examples are probably not the best ones, but I am pretty sure there are some special abilities or wargear that are worded like " treat the vehicule as shaken/stunned/weapon destroyed")

So Obviously this FAQ - and the loss of the hull point- is specific to "failing dangerous terrain", not to the Immobilized result.

Anyway, in game I will not claim a hull point if my opponent DS a drop pod on the board , until GW re-FAQ /clarify that again.

This is a tricky one.... I thought it was going to be some baby trying to get out of of dieing so bad from a Drop Pod, or a cheap way to gain a point to point advantage.

If, I were to make the call, I would refer to the part "Counts As."

Why even use those words in any of the rules.

If it was meant to take a hit then it would say something like : When drop pod enters battle, it takes a immobilizing hit... maybe it suffers an immobilizing result and looses a hull point.

But it says treated as, counts as.... and to me it makes no since to loose wounds before play. If it scatters and goes in a no no place sure, that is in play. If it lands in terrain, then sure, as it has landed. Same with any DS unit right?

I see it as mobile until it lands. If I were to make the call, it lands and becomes immobilized without damage. then when you hit it, if you immobilized it a second time, this would cause a weapon damaged, and loose a haul point.

If it lands in terrain I would see it as moving until it lands. So it would only take a single damage on a dangerous terrain impact if it fails the save. As for loosing 3 hull points, that is just silly. Like it just falls from the sky and brakes into piece in rubble, but on a road it lands just fine. Its the year 40,0000 not 400

 Adrian Fue Fue wrote:
If, I were to make the call, I would refer to the part "Counts As."

Why even use those words in any of the rules.

Because nothing has actually happened to the pod to cause damage to it. It just counts as if it has.

But counting as if you have been immobilised is effectively the same as being immobilised... otherwise, you're not counting as immobilised.

... then when you hit it, if you immobilized it a second time, this would cause a weapon damaged, ...

The second immobilised doesn't do that in 6th edition.

The drop pod is meant to be immobile, so RAI it shouldn't lose a HP. An overly strict RAW point of view may give grounds for an argument, but with an overly strict RAW point of view half of the rules break down...

copper.talos wrote:
The drop pod is meant to be immobile, so RAI it shouldn't lose a HP

Ok... why not?

rigeld2 wrote:
The immobilized result from a DTT must be the same as the one when rolling a 5 for pen. Do you agree?

That is simply not the case. It is the pen hit which causes the HP damage, the Rule Book tells you this. If you take the damage table at face value you would never lose a HP, it is the process of getting to the damage table that causes you to lose a HP.

@insaniak
because an immobilized drop pod is not considered as damaged at all. All drop pods in combat are meant to become immobilized.

Anyway the point I am trying to make is not RAW so there isn't any definite arguments I can make on this.

copper.talos, I think most people are purely arguing the wording of the rules. I don't think anyone intends to play with -1 HP on all Drop Pods. I certainly don't and nor would I enforce that on my opponent.

copper.talos wrote:
@insaniak
because an immobilized drop pod is not considered as damaged at all...

Aside from where GW specifically says to treat it as damaged?