Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 06:40:53


Post by: Elnicko5


I had a rules debate with an opponent in a game I played recently and wanted to see how other people were playing it. I looked seven pages back and couldn't find anything. When a drop pod comes down it is immobilized. My opponent argued that because this is a damage result the pod loses a hull point. I argued that the only mention of loss of hull points is under the heading of glancing and penetrating hits, neither of which happened to the pod. We played that it did not lose the point, as there was really no mention of losing a hull point outside of glancing or penetrating hits. Did we play it right?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 06:45:53


Post by: Ascalam


AFAIK the immobile result is a seperate issue from hull point loss. Hull points are only lost when a vehicle suffers a glancing or penetrating hit IIRC.

A pen will cause a hull point loss AND a roll on the table after all.

In the case of the drop pod i'd say it doesn't lose a HP just for doing what it's intended to do.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 06:51:26


Post by: Eldercaveman


Yeah if you look at the Drop Pod entry, it has the Special Rule Immobile, it doesn't suffer an immobilized hit. It may count as a model that has suffered the result for all intents and purposes, but it hasn't actually suffered one. So no, it doesn't lose a hull point/


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 08:56:33


Post by: Luide


Eldercaveman wrote:
Yeah if you look at the Drop Pod entry, it has the Special Rule Immobile, it doesn't suffer an immobilized hit. It may count as a model that has suffered the result for all intents and purposes, but it hasn't actually suffered one. So no, it doesn't lose a hull point/
SM FAQ:
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 they counts as having suffered Immobilised result, which according to BRB FAQ includes loss of Hull point. Note that your interpretation that "counts as having suffered" is somehow different than actually having suffered is wrong, and if you apply it consistently will break the whole game.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 09:07:19


Post by: Eldercaveman


It's not the immobile result that takes the hull point, it's the penetrating hit, if it was to receive another immobile result then it would lose a hull point for two immobile results.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 09:23:20


Post by: Backlash


Ascalm already pointed it out. Suffering anything on the damage table does not take a hull point. It is a glancing or penetrating hit takes the hull point. Was a glancing or penetrating hit inflicted? No, so no loss of a hull point. This is supported but dangerous terrain tests, which immobilizes the vehicle but otherwise does not take a hull point "unless you are already immobilized which is another scenario" Drop pods come in with their full compliment of hull points.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 09:35:52


Post by: edbradders


Only TFG would say a drop pod loses a hull point when it lands.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 09:58:00


Post by: ItsPug


Backlash wrote:
Ascalm already pointed it out. Suffering anything on the damage table does not take a hull point. It is a glancing or penetrating hit takes the hull point. Was a glancing or penetrating hit inflicted? No, so no loss of a hull point. This is supported but dangerous terrain tests, which immobilizes the vehicle but otherwise does not take a hull point "unless you are already immobilized which is another scenario" Drop pods come in with their full compliment of hull points.


Thats actually incorrect.

BRB FAQ, 2nd Page: 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”.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 10:36:27


Post by: liturgies of blood


Just because a vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain check looses a hull point doesn't follow that the vehicles that count as immobilised looses a hull point.

Similarly, if there are still abilities out there that cause a vehicle to be shaken or stunned for a turn then by your logic you can use them to strip hull points off of vehicles without any permission as these are usually only results of the damage chart.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 11:19:01


Post by: insaniak


 edbradders wrote:
Only TFG would say a drop pod loses a hull point when it lands.
That's not a productive addition to the discussion.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 12:02:13


Post by: rigeld2


 liturgies of blood wrote:
Just because a vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain check looses a hull point doesn't follow that the vehicles that count as immobilised looses a hull point.

Similarly, if there are still abilities out there that cause a vehicle to be shaken or stunned for a turn then by your logic you can use them to strip hull points off of vehicles without any permission as these are usually only results of the damage chart.

The Dangerous Terrain FAQ shows that the hull point loss is included with the Immobilization result. Meaning that unless stated otherwise, you cannot suffer an Immobilization without losing a hull point.
Do Drop Pods state otherwise?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 12:22:55


Post by: KingCracker


Eldercaveman wrote:
It's not the immobile result that takes the hull point, it's the penetrating hit, if it was to receive another immobile result then it would lose a hull point for two immobile results.




This is correct. No matter HOW you look at it. A vehicle can only suffer from an immobilization and lose a hull point if you rolled on the damage chart. Period. Since you dont roll on the VDC when dropping in, you do not lose a hull point. It only mentions being immobile so that there isnt confusion about weather it can move or not


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 12:26:28


Post by: rigeld2


 KingCracker wrote:
Eldercaveman wrote:
It's not the immobile result that takes the hull point, it's the penetrating hit, if it was to receive another immobile result then it would lose a hull point for two immobile results.


This is correct. No matter HOW you look at it. A vehicle can only suffer from an immobilization and lose a hull point if you rolled on the damage chart. Period. Since you dont roll on the VDC when dropping in, you do not lose a hull point. It only mentions being immobile so that there isnt confusion about weather it can move or not

Only if you ignore the Dangerous Terrain FAQ posted in this thread.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 13:25:55


Post by: Luide


 KingCracker wrote:
This is correct. No matter HOW you look at it. A vehicle can only suffer from an immobilization and lose a hull point if you rolled on the damage chart. Period. Since you dont roll on the VDC when dropping in, you do not lose a hull point. It only mentions being immobile so that there isnt confusion about weather it can move or not
Please read the FAQ before making unfounded arguments like this. I've included it here and underlined the relevant portion:

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”.


Note that this FAQ explicitly states that your argument is wrong. Vehicle can will lose hull point from being Immobilized, even if they did not rell on the damage chart. Period.
Edit: In fact, that FAQ states that suffering Immobilised result always includes losing one Hull Point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 14:09:14


Post by: MarkyMark


So if you had something like the sabre platforms (yea there are now different stats but still) that have the same immobile rule as drop pods but only have ONE hull point, you would say they are instantly destroyed?

Will try and find a up to date example. Do you acutally play it as such Luide?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 15:34:52


Post by: Luide


Drop Pods? Before FAQ I said they would not lose HP. After FAQ, it sure looks like they do lose HP the moment they drop.

But I have no issues with house-rules. In fact, there are quite few I prefer to use instead of RAW:
1) Use character T and WS in challenge instead of Majority
2) Wounds from scattered blast markers can be allocated to models outside LOS.
3) All abilities that are supposed to allow wounding models out of LOS may allocate wounds to models out of LOS, instead of doing nothing.

There are obviously others, those were just the first ones to come in mind.

and if there existed immobile model with single HP, I obviously wouldn't count it destroyed immediately after deployment in normal game.

But it is extremely important to know what the actual rules is and not claim something is RAW when it is not.
Everyone in our gaming group agrees that "Majority T and WS in challenges" is the actual rule. We also agree that it is obviously oversight, like FMC's not losing Hard to Hit while grounded pre-FAQ was.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 15:36:56


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert


Can't believe that your opponent was this deuchy. Does the Pod have a means of motive force? Can it move? That is why it is immobile, it lacks wheels, treads, anti-grav, what have you.

I suggest you ask if when your opponents wheels are removed form his car if the body/chasis is any less damaged. The answer obviously is no, it just can't move anymore.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 15:39:30


Post by: kronk


Luide wrote:


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”.


Note that this FAQ explicitly states that your argument is wrong. Vehicle can will lose hull point from being Immobilized, even if they did not rell on the damage chart. Period.
Edit: In fact, that FAQ states that suffering Immobilised result always includes losing one Hull Point.


Actually, it says that if it "fails a Dangerous Terrain test..."

A drop pod deploying would only take a dangerous terrain test if it landed in dangerous terrain.

Sorry, but I find your reading of this to be wrong. The immobilized drop pod would not take a hull point. Until a FAQ explicitly states this, I wouldn't enforce this on my opponent's drop pods.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 16:22:39


Post by: Spetulhu


 kronk wrote:
Actually, it says that if it "fails a Dangerous Terrain test..."

A drop pod deploying would only take a dangerous terrain test if it landed in dangerous terrain.


I'd have to agree on this. Where Dangerous Terrain tests are concerned GW has also FAQd it so vehicles with an Invulnerable save get to use it to avoid the damage result. To me that makes it seem GW considers the result of failing a Dangerous Terrain test as a glancing/penetrating hit but with a set damage result. It's not Immobilized that causes loss of HP, it's an actual hit that you can save against.

Drop Pods just start the game immobile. They never failed any test, they never even got one.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 16:42:03


Post by: juraigamer


The immoblized result isn't from a damage roll, or a test, it just starts the game immobilized. No hull point is lost.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 16:54:50


Post by: liturgies of blood


The faq doesn't say that the result of an immobilisation automatically loses a hull point. It says that in A SPECIFIC CASE you recieve the result including a docked hull point.
Not that immobilisation takes a hull point away in every case.

RAW vs RAI I don't see RAW saying that anything that is immobilised looses a hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 16:59:20


Post by: Homer S


Luide wrote:
 KingCracker wrote:
This is correct. No matter HOW you look at it. A vehicle can only suffer from an immobilization and lose a hull point if you rolled on the damage chart. Period. Since you dont roll on the VDC when dropping in, you do not lose a hull point. It only mentions being immobile so that there isnt confusion about weather it can move or not
Please read the FAQ before making unfounded arguments like this. I've included it here and underlined the relevant portion:

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”.


Note that this FAQ explicitly states that your argument is wrong. Vehicle can will lose hull point from being Immobilized, even if they did not rell on the damage chart. Period.
Edit: In fact, that FAQ states that suffering Immobilised result always includes losing one Hull Point.

What it states is that when Immobilized through failing a D/D test you lose a hull point. Extending that to a non-damage inflicted immobilized, say from not having any movement, is not included in the FAQ.

Homer


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 17:07:22


Post by: Tomb King


Spetulhu wrote:
 kronk wrote:
Actually, it says that if it "fails a Dangerous Terrain test..."

A drop pod deploying would only take a dangerous terrain test if it landed in dangerous terrain.


I'd have to agree on this. Where Dangerous Terrain tests are concerned GW has also FAQd it so vehicles with an Invulnerable save get to use it to avoid the damage result. To me that makes it seem GW considers the result of failing a Dangerous Terrain test as a glancing/penetrating hit but with a set damage result. It's not Immobilized that causes loss of HP, it's an actual hit that you can save against.

Drop Pods just start the game immobile. They never failed any test, they never even got one.


juraigamer wrote:The immoblized result isn't from a damage roll, or a test, it just starts the game immobilized. No hull point is lost.



For starters a drop pod does not start the game immobilized. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to put it anywhere on the board during your movement phase. It becomes immobilized as a result of landing on the board.

Sorry guys some rules in 6th edition suck. You can choose to remain blind to them or adapt like everyone else is. It loses a hull point as anytime a vehicle becomes immobilized it loses a hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 17:13:15


Post by: Grey Templar


You only lose Hull Points when you take a Glance or a Penetrating hit. Neither of which the Drop Pod suffers. It simply becomes immobilized.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 17:17:15


Post by: Tomb King


 Grey Templar wrote:
You only lose Hull Points when you take a Glance or a Penetrating hit. Neither of which the Drop Pod suffers. It simply becomes immobilized.


Have you had the fun time of failing a dangerous terrain test with a vehicle in 6th edition? You are neither glanced or penetrated... but what happens?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 17:34:43


Post by: nosferatu1001


 Grey Templar wrote:
You only lose Hull Points when you take a Glance or a Penetrating hit. Neither of which the Drop Pod suffers. It simply becomes immobilized.


Check your FAQs, or even this thread where it has been posted a number of times, as you are 100% wrong on this.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 17:37:10


Post by: MarkyMark


It does state under the glancing and pen that you lose a hull point, (as well as failing dangerous terrain, which by how I read it does take 2 HP's off a drop pod). Immobile says the drop pod is treated as having the immobilsed result that is found on the table. If it was meant to lose a HP it would say it suffers a penerating hit and is automatically a 5 on the damage chart which it doesnt. It says treat it as having a 5.

Yes the usual way to get a result on the chart is to remove a hull point but as we are being told what result to use this is NOT a usual way.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 17:37:52


Post by: Grey Templar


Ok, I'll amend that.

You only lose a Hull Point when Glanced, Penned, or you fail a DT roll. None of which the Drop Pod suffers.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 17:45:25


Post by: Happyjew


Yet in order to be treated as having suffered an immobilised result, it must also be treated add having lost a hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 17:47:31


Post by: Grey Templar


Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:02:02


Post by: Tye_Informer


If you treat the drop pod as if it received an immobilized result, the challenge then is finding a situation where you get an immobilized result without losing a HP. I can't find one. Prior to the failed DT test taking a hull point, I could point to that and say "The only way to lose a HP is a glance or pen hit, failing a DT immobilizes the vehicle without losing a HP, the drop pod works the same". However, now there is not another immobilized result in the game that I can point to that does not also lose a HP. The FAQ for a failed DT even tacks on the loss of the hull point as if it was an "of course, you also lose a hull point". by using language like "including".

That means a drop pod could be wrecked on arrival by landing in Difficult Terrain, which forces a terrain test. Landing, as normal, takes a HP and immobilizes the vehicle. A failed DT test takes a HP and another immobilized result which, according to the chart, becomes another HP loss if you are already immobilized.

If someone could find another situation where a vehicle was immobilized without losing a hull point, then I will switch my opinion back to Drop Pods don't lose a HP, but without that I have to side with the lose a HP crowd.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:02:39


Post by: Tomb King


 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.


Read and apply:http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3000006&multiPageMode=true&start=2 For your sake and our sanity.

For clarification read the rulebook faq. Scroll down to the part about dangerous terrain Pg. 71 is an easy way to find it in the faq. It adds the losing a hull point to the end of it.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:03:38


Post by: MarkyMark


 Happyjew wrote:
Yet in order to be treated as having suffered an immobilised result, it must also be treated add having lost a hull point.


Usually yes, but then you roll on the damage table, you are not rolling on the damage table you are being told what to do.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:08:52


Post by: Luide


 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.
You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:10:28


Post by: Grey Templar


Luide wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.
You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/


Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:12:53


Post by: Tomb King


 Grey Templar wrote:
Luide wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.
You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/


Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)


We have rules backing up our argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:14:54


Post by: Grey Templar


 Tomb King wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Luide wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.
You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/


Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)


We have rules backing up are argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?


That it doesn't say it does lose a Hull Point.

Permissive rules set you know.

Until GW comes and says that Drop Pods lose a Hull Point when they become Immobilized they will not lose a Hull Point.

Just because there are other situations where a vehicle becomes Immobilized, and has been FAQ'd to lose a HP, doesn't mean it applies here.

And no need to be so hostile.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:18:27


Post by: Tomb King


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Luide wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.
You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/


Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)


We have rules backing up are argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?


That it doesn't say it does lose a Hull Point.

Permissive rules set you know.

Until GW comes and says that Drop Pods lose a Hull Point when they become Immobilized they will not lose a Hull Point.

Just because there are other situations where a vehicle becomes Immobilized, and has been FAQ'd to lose a HP, doesn't mean it applies here.

And no need to be so hostile.


Of all my post that is the hostile one? If thats the way you wish to play it just dont expect the same in the tournament scene. For me I will be giving up my hull points willing with the added addition that I get to move up to 6" after I disembark.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:22:17


Post by: MarkyMark


So what happens what you pod down, land in DT fail the test which removes two hull points (one for failing and getting immoblised, the second for being immoblised twice) and how you would play it, the third for being immobile?, bye bye to first blood and really the contents as they cannot disembark from something that is destroyed as it comes on the board


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:26:25


Post by: Tomb King


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


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:28:00


Post by: Grey Templar


 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


The Immobilized damage result is seperate from losing the Hull Point. The HP is lost upon suffering a Penetrating hit, and before rolling on the damage chart.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:31:19


Post by: Tomb King


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


The Immobilized damage result is seperate from losing the Hull Point. The HP is lost upon suffering a Penetrating hit, and before rolling on the damage chart.


I have said my piece and will take my leave before making a mistake.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:31:35


Post by: MarkyMark


 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


Exactly, so the BRB says glance lose a hull point or Pen you lose a hull point then rolls on the table, a failed DT takes away a HP as per FAQ. Being Immobile is not like rolling on the table as a result of a pen hit, which you lose a hull point, as rolling on the table gives you a random result. You are being told to count it as a vehicle that has suffered a immbilized result not acutally apply the complete process to it (penned then rolling on the table)


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:39:17


Post by: 40k-noob


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Luide wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.
You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/


Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)


We have rules backing up are argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?


That it doesn't say it does lose a Hull Point.

Permissive rules set you know.

Until GW comes and says that Drop Pods lose a Hull Point when they become Immobilized they will not lose a Hull Point.

Just because there are other situations where a vehicle becomes Immobilized, and has been FAQ'd to lose a HP, doesn't mean it applies here.

And no need to be so hostile.


Have to agree with GT. I am not sure why folks are pointing to the FAQ about dangerous terrain at all in this case. The OP never said anything about danger terrain and as such should have no bearing in this discussion.

The question at hand is if upon landing does a DP suffer a HP loss. The answer is no, since the rules for losing HP are govern by a select set of circumstances:
1. Glancing Hits cause an HP loss
2. Penetrating Hits cause an HP Loss
3. Failed D/D Terain test causes an HP Loss
4. Immobilized Damage result for an ALREADY immobilized vehicle
5. Some psyker powers i believe can cause an HP Loss ( not sure about his one)

In this case neither of these apply to a DP landing.
It did not take any hits of any kind, nor failed a D/D Test, nor suffered a double immobilized result and definitely no Psyker attacks.

So where does it lose the HP from?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 18:55:02


Post by: Tomb King


40k-noob wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Luide wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.
You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/


Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)


We have rules backing up are argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?


That it doesn't say it does lose a Hull Point.

Permissive rules set you know.

Until GW comes and says that Drop Pods lose a Hull Point when they become Immobilized they will not lose a Hull Point.

Just because there are other situations where a vehicle becomes Immobilized, and has been FAQ'd to lose a HP, doesn't mean it applies here.

And no need to be so hostile.


Have to agree with GT. I am not sure why folks are pointing to the FAQ about dangerous terrain at all in this case. The OP never said anything about danger terrain and as such should have no bearing in this discussion.

The question at hand is if upon landing does a DP suffer a HP loss. The answer is no, since the rules for losing HP are govern by a select set of circumstances:
1. Glancing Hits cause an HP loss
2. Penetrating Hits cause an HP Loss
3. Failed D/D Terain test causes an HP Loss
4. Immobilized Damage result for an ALREADY immobilized vehicle
5. Some psyker powers i believe can cause an HP Loss ( not sure about his one)

In this case neither of these apply to a DP landing.
It did not take any hits of any kind, nor failed a D/D Test, nor suffered a double immobilized result and definitely no Psyker attacks.

So where does it lose the HP from?


Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:08:14


Post by: 40k-noob


Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:09:40


Post by: kronk


 Tomb King wrote:

Sorry guys some rules in 6th edition suck. You can choose to remain blind to them or adapt like everyone else is. It loses a hull point as anytime a vehicle becomes immobilized it loses a hull point.


If someone disagrees with you and points out why, it's poor form to call them blind.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:18:53


Post by: Tomb King


40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.



For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"

kronk wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:

Sorry guys some rules in 6th edition suck. You can choose to remain blind to them or adapt like everyone else is. It loses a hull point as anytime a vehicle becomes immobilized it loses a hull point.


If someone disagrees with you and points out why, it's poor form to call them blind.



My apologies I could of worded that a lot better. Was meant to be an observation of two routes to the changes and not directed.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:27:39


Post by: FenixZero


Question, as I don't have my Tau codex, but can't Tau Skimmers with Landing Gear choose to land, and be treated as Immobilized?

If so, does that mean they automatically take a HP for doing so?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:27:56


Post by: wildboar


The Drop-Pod is a totally seperate unit/entity/whatever to all the above examples you have given for the loss of a HP. All of the rules references are correct and all apply in their own set of given circumstances but until an FAQ shows specifically stating that the Drop-Pod loses a HP upon a normal landing then it does not.

All these arguments over DT, Penetrating and Glancing hits etc are unfounded as nowhere do these rules apply to the Drop-Pod.

An if said FAQ ever arrived shall we have a guess at which way they will go?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:33:06


Post by: Tomb King


 wildboar wrote:
The Drop-Pod is a totally seperate unit/entity/whatever to all the above examples you have given for the loss of a HP. All of the rules references are correct and all apply in their own set of given circumstances but until an FAQ shows specifically stating that the Drop-Pod loses a HP upon a normal landing then it does not.

All these arguments over DT, Penetrating and Glancing hits etc are unfounded as nowhere do these rules apply to the Drop-Pod.

An if said FAQ ever arrived shall we have a guess at which way they will go?


Actually RAW is that it loses a hull point. My post above quoted the rule. It is treated a vehicle that has suffered all that. Not that it is immobilized. Not that it suffers an immobilized result but, that it is treated as one that has in all respects. In every situation where a vehicle has suffered an immobilized result it has also suffered a loss of a hull point. So for it to be treated in ALL respects the same as a vehicle that had suffered that result it too would have to lose a hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:35:53


Post by: 40k-noob


 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.



For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"


Yes, I can agree with that.
However, the rule is specific and says it counts as the damage result and nothing else. The HP loss if from the hit not from the damage result.
The damage result is just this:
BRB Vehicle Damage Chart: 5 - Immobilized wrote:
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.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:40:26


Post by: Tomb King


40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.



For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"


Yes, I can agree with that.
However, the rule is specific and says it counts as the damage result and nothing else. The HP loss if from the hit not from the damage result.
The damage result is just this:
BRB Vehicle Damage Chart: 5 - Immobilized wrote:
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.


The rule says its counts as the damage result and nothing else? I didnt see that in any of the rules i read. It says its treated as a vehicle that has suffered those effects. Not that its treated as being immobilized. See previous post to get to a point where a vehicle is immobilized. Every situation a vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point. So for it to meet the standard it must take all the effects of said vehicle.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:42:33


Post by: Grey Templar


Except the loss of the HP is not tied to the damage result. Its tied to taking a Penetrating hit.


A Penetrating hit has 2 effects.

1) Lose a Hull Point.

2) Roll on the damage chart.

1 is not related to 2 except they have the same cause.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:45:37


Post by: Tomb King


 Grey Templar wrote:
Except the loss of the HP is not tied to the damage result. Its tied to taking a Penetrating hit.


A Penetrating hit has 2 effects.

1) Lose a Hull Point.

2) Roll on the damage chart.

1 is not related to 2 except they have the same cause.


No it is not tied to the damage result. That is not why its raw. Its raw because it is treated in ALL respects as a vehicle that has suffered that damage result. In every situation that vehicle is -1 hull point. So for it to be treated in all respects as that vehicle it too would need to be -1 hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:46:03


Post by: MarkyMark


So gauss plyons and hydra platforms also lose HP's as they are classed immobile vehicles in your opinion, 50 pts for av10 and 1 hp....




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Except the loss of the HP is not tied to the damage result. Its tied to taking a Penetrating hit.


A Penetrating hit has 2 effects.

1) Lose a Hull Point.

2) Roll on the damage chart.

1 is not related to 2 except they have the same cause.


No it is not tied to the damage result. That is not why its raw. Its raw because it is treated in ALL respects as a vehicle that has suffered that damage result. In every situation that vehicle is -1 hull point. So for it to be treated in all respects as that vehicle it too would need to be -1 hull point.


But whats to say that immobile vehicles is NOT that situation?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:47:18


Post by: Grey Templar


Good thing buildings don't have Hull Points, otherwise they'd be useless


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:48:40


Post by: insaniak


FenixZero wrote:
Question, as I don't have my Tau codex, but can't Tau Skimmers with Landing Gear choose to land, and be treated as Immobilized?

No, they just don't count as skimmers while landed.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:51:34


Post by: Tomb King


MarkyMark wrote:
So gauss plyons and hydra platforms also lose HP's as they are classed immobile vehicles in your opinion, 50 pts for av10 and 1 hp....




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Except the loss of the HP is not tied to the damage result. Its tied to taking a Penetrating hit.


A Penetrating hit has 2 effects.

1) Lose a Hull Point.

2) Roll on the damage chart.

1 is not related to 2 except they have the same cause.


No it is not tied to the damage result. That is not why its raw. Its raw because it is treated in ALL respects as a vehicle that has suffered that damage result. In every situation that vehicle is -1 hull point. So for it to be treated in all respects as that vehicle it too would need to be -1 hull point.


But whats to say that immobile vehicles is NOT that situation?


Immobile is the special rule for drop pods and those above never suffered an immobilized result.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 19:57:27


Post by: MarkyMark


MarkyMark wrote:
 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


Exactly, so the BRB says glance lose a hull point or Pen you lose a hull point then rolls on the table, a failed DT takes away a HP as per FAQ. Being Immobile is not like rolling on the table as a result of a pen hit, which you lose a hull point, as rolling on the table gives you a random result. You are being told to count it as a vehicle that has suffered a immbilized result not acutally apply the complete process to it (penned then rolling on the table)


I'll ask this again, you are being told to treat it as a immobilzed damage result, so you do, no where does it say to treat it as a penetrated hit on the damage table, automatically choosing 5 on the damage chart. The result is what you get from rolling on the table is it not? you are assuming this includes the reason why you are rolling on the table which is usually a penertrating hit which is what removes a HP from it.

There is no pentrating hit, so no loss of HP


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 20:07:13


Post by: Tomb King


MarkyMark wrote:
MarkyMark wrote:
 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


Exactly, so the BRB says glance lose a hull point or Pen you lose a hull point then rolls on the table, a failed DT takes away a HP as per FAQ. Being Immobile is not like rolling on the table as a result of a pen hit, which you lose a hull point, as rolling on the table gives you a random result. You are being told to count it as a vehicle that has suffered a immbilized result not acutally apply the complete process to it (penned then rolling on the table)


I'll ask this again, you are being told to treat it as a immobilzed damage result, so you do, no where does it say to treat it as a penetrated hit on the damage table, automatically choosing 5 on the damage chart. The result is what you get from rolling on the table is it not? you are assuming this includes the reason why you are rolling on the table which is usually a penertrating hit which is what removes a HP from it.

There is no pentrating hit, so no loss of HP


No your being told to treat it as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result in every aspect.

See how you can see it differently.

The text in question doesn't state that it suffers and immobilized damage result alone it says it is treated as a vehicle that has and in every situation where a vehicle has it has also suffered a hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 20:12:37


Post by: MarkyMark


But it doesnt tell you to subtract a hull point, it tells you to treat is as a suffered a immobziled result which is the result on the table. It even says you cannot repair it in any way, which normally you can restore a hull point to a damage vehicle. Another hint that this is not normal.

You are assuming that you follow the 'normal' process of having a pentrating hit on the damage table, it doesnt tell you to do that, it says to treat it as having suffered a immobilzed result on the table.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 20:18:08


Post by: Tomb King


MarkyMark wrote:
But it doesnt tell you to subtract a hull point, it tells you to treat is as a suffered a immobziled result which is the result on the table. It even says you cannot repair it in any way, which normally you can restore a hull point to a damage vehicle. Another hint that this is not normal.

You are assuming that you follow the 'normal' process of having a pentrating hit on the damage table, it doesnt tell you to do that, it says to treat it as having suffered a immobilzed result on the table.


This is like a gauntlet. It would be best if you read the thread in its entirety so I dont have to keep repeating it over and over. There is more then one way a vehicle can become immobolized. However, in every situation that a vehicle becomes immobilized it also loses a hull point. This is including failed DT test.

Now to treat a vehicle in ALL RESPECTS as a vehicle that has suffered that result.

Since any vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point regardless of the means of suffering the result. (find one situation where a vehicle has suffered an immobilization and not a hull point as well.)

For a drop pod to be the same in all respects as a vehicle that suffered that result it too would need to suffer 1 hull point. Otherwise it would not be treated in all respects as another vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 20:20:11


Post by: 40k-noob


 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.



For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"


Yes, I can agree with that.
However, the rule is specific and says it counts as the damage result and nothing else. The HP loss if from the hit not from the damage result.
The damage result is just this:
BRB Vehicle Damage Chart: 5 - Immobilized wrote:
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.


The rule says its counts as the damage result and nothing else? I didnt see that in any of the rules i read. It says its treated as a vehicle that has suffered those effects. Not that its treated as being immobilized. See previous post to get to a point where a vehicle is immobilized. Every situation a vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point. So for it to meet the standard it must take all the effects of said vehicle.


Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 20:21:56


Post by: Lord Krungharr


Luide wrote:
Eldercaveman wrote:
Yeah if you look at the Drop Pod entry, it has the Special Rule Immobile, it doesn't suffer an immobilized hit. It may count as a model that has suffered the result for all intents and purposes, but it hasn't actually suffered one. So no, it doesn't lose a hull point/
SM FAQ:
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 they counts as having suffered Immobilised result, which according to BRB FAQ includes loss of Hull point. Note that your interpretation that "counts as having suffered" is somehow different than actually having suffered is wrong, and if you apply it consistently will break the whole game.


Your FAQ citation still does not say the Drop Pod suffers the loss of a Hull Point. It just says if one gets shot, penetrated, and has another Immobilised result then it does to Weapon Destroyed instead.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 20:23:32


Post by: Grey Templar


 Tomb King wrote:
MarkyMark wrote:
But it doesnt tell you to subtract a hull point, it tells you to treat is as a suffered a immobziled result which is the result on the table. It even says you cannot repair it in any way, which normally you can restore a hull point to a damage vehicle. Another hint that this is not normal.

You are assuming that you follow the 'normal' process of having a pentrating hit on the damage table, it doesnt tell you to do that, it says to treat it as having suffered a immobilzed result on the table.


This is like a gauntlet. It would be best if you read the thread in its entirety so I dont have to keep repeating it over and over. There is more then one way a vehicle can become immobolized. However, in every situation that a vehicle becomes immobilized it also loses a hull point. This is including failed DT test.

Now to treat a vehicle in ALL RESPECTS as a vehicle that has suffered that result.

Since any vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point regardless of the means of suffering the result. (find one situation where a vehicle has suffered an immobilization and not a hull point as well.)

For a drop pod to be the same in all respects as a vehicle that suffered that result it too would need to suffer 1 hull point. Otherwise it would not be treated in all respects as another vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result.


And again, just because it happens there doesn't mean you can apply it here.

Vehicles did NOT lose HPs to DT tests prior to the Errata.

You cannot infer that just because one completely different thing that Immobilizes a vehicle causes a HP to be lost that another thing that Immobilizes the vehicle will cause it to lose a HP. Permissive Ruleset. It MUST say that the HP is lost for you to lose it. Anything else is just plain wrong.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 20:24:36


Post by: Tomb King


40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.



For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"


Yes, I can agree with that.
However, the rule is specific and says it counts as the damage result and nothing else. The HP loss if from the hit not from the damage result.
The damage result is just this:
BRB Vehicle Damage Chart: 5 - Immobilized wrote:
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.


The rule says its counts as the damage result and nothing else? I didnt see that in any of the rules i read. It says its treated as a vehicle that has suffered those effects. Not that its treated as being immobilized. See previous post to get to a point where a vehicle is immobilized. Every situation a vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point. So for it to meet the standard it must take all the effects of said vehicle.


Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.


I didnt say it took a hit anywhere.. that does not matter.

To be treated the same in all aspects.

An example:

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point (as any immobolized result only comes with a result of -1 hull point, its not possible to suffer an immobolized result without losing a hull point)

Vehicle B is immobolized with full hull points

Answer: No they are not the same in all area's.

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point

Vehicle B is immobolized and -1 hull point

Yes, these vehicles are now both the same.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 20:39:02


Post by: 40k-noob


 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.



For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"


Yes, I can agree with that.
However, the rule is specific and says it counts as the damage result and nothing else. The HP loss if from the hit not from the damage result.
The damage result is just this:
BRB Vehicle Damage Chart: 5 - Immobilized wrote:
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.


The rule says its counts as the damage result and nothing else? I didnt see that in any of the rules i read. It says its treated as a vehicle that has suffered those effects. Not that its treated as being immobilized. See previous post to get to a point where a vehicle is immobilized. Every situation a vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point. So for it to meet the standard it must take all the effects of said vehicle.


Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.


I didnt say it took a hit anywhere.. that does not matter.

To be treated the same in all aspects.

An example:

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point (as any immobolized result only comes with a result of -1 hull point, its not possible to suffer an immobolized result without losing a hull point)

Vehicle B is immobolized with full hull points

Answer: No they are not the same in all area's.

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point

Vehicle B is immobolized and -1 hull point

Yes, these vehicles are now both the same.


You are confusing the issue.

Your counts as is looking at other things besides damage result. You are at looking at hull points.

The correct analogy is this:
Vic A - 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

Vic B - 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

Are the two the same? Yes they are.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 20:53:10


Post by: Tomb King


40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.



For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"


Yes, I can agree with that.
However, the rule is specific and says it counts as the damage result and nothing else. The HP loss if from the hit not from the damage result.
The damage result is just this:
BRB Vehicle Damage Chart: 5 - Immobilized wrote:
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.


The rule says its counts as the damage result and nothing else? I didnt see that in any of the rules i read. It says its treated as a vehicle that has suffered those effects. Not that its treated as being immobilized. See previous post to get to a point where a vehicle is immobilized. Every situation a vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point. So for it to meet the standard it must take all the effects of said vehicle.


Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.


I didnt say it took a hit anywhere.. that does not matter.

To be treated the same in all aspects.

An example:

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point (as any immobolized result only comes with a result of -1 hull point, its not possible to suffer an immobolized result without losing a hull point)

Vehicle B is immobolized with full hull points

Answer: No they are not the same in all area's.

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point

Vehicle B is immobolized and -1 hull point

Yes, these vehicles are now both the same.


You are confusing the issue.

Your counts as is looking at other things besides damage result. You are at looking at hull points.

The correct analogy is this:
Vic A - 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

Vic B - 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

Are the two the same? Yes they are.



For starters here is the drop pod rule:
Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


Now the only question that matters is how does a vehicle suffer an immobilized damage result? Once we figure that out we have to match the vehicles condition in all respects. Can you find a situation where a vehicle does not suffer a hull point in the process of suffering a immobilized damage result?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 20:57:13


Post by: MarkyMark


They suffer that result by rolling on the table. It doesnt say to roll on the table so isnt a 'normal' process which is the rest of the time preceeded by suffereing a penerating hit


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 21:04:08


Post by: Tomb King


MarkyMark wrote:
They suffer that result by rolling on the table. It doesnt say to roll on the table so isnt a 'normal' process which is the rest of the time preceeded by suffereing a penerating hit


I am just pointing out what you need to meet the RAW and possibly the RAI. YMPID and that is fine but for big tournaments and such you should expect the latter of it losing a hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 21:04:18


Post by: nolzur


So, what some of the people in this thread are saying is that immobilized removes a hull point.

Penetrating hits remove a hull point.

According to this logic:
Step 1 - I hit your tank, and roll a pen, you lose a hull point
Step 2 - I roll an immobilized result, you become immobilized and lose a hull point

Wow, immobilized results really suck according to this faulty logic, because they can wreck light vehicles pretty easily.

(I am ready for your flaming, but, this is exactly what you are saying if immobilized causes a hull point loss)


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 21:09:59


Post by: Tomb King


 nolzur wrote:
So, what some of the people in this thread are saying is that immobilized removes a hull point.

Penetrating hits remove a hull point.

According to this logic:
Step 1 - I hit your tank, and roll a pen, you lose a hull point
Step 2 - I roll an immobilized result, you become immobilized and lose a hull point

Wow, immobilized results really suck according to this faulty logic, because they can wreck light vehicles pretty easily.

(I am ready for your flaming, but, this is exactly what you are saying if immobilized causes a hull point loss)


No flame needed. Just illumination.

Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


So for a drop pod to counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result. It would need to be in the exact same condition of one that has suffered such a result right? Every situation in the game of warhammer 40k that brings a vehicle to being immobilized is also accompanied with the vehicle losing a hull point.

Vehicle is penned (losing hull point) and a 5 of the damage table is rolled making it immobilized. (This vehicle has suffered an immobilized result)
Vehicle moves through difficult/dangerous terrain and rolls a 1. The vehicle per the faq becomes immobolized and loses a hull point. (This vehicle has suffered and immobilized result)

Is there any way I missed that a vehicle can suffer an immobilized result and not lose a hull point? Then by definition to meet that standard in all respects you would have to lose a hull point when immobilized.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 21:12:07


Post by: 40k-noob


 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.



For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"


Yes, I can agree with that.
However, the rule is specific and says it counts as the damage result and nothing else. The HP loss if from the hit not from the damage result.
The damage result is just this:
BRB Vehicle Damage Chart: 5 - Immobilized wrote:
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.


The rule says its counts as the damage result and nothing else? I didnt see that in any of the rules i read. It says its treated as a vehicle that has suffered those effects. Not that its treated as being immobilized. See previous post to get to a point where a vehicle is immobilized. Every situation a vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point. So for it to meet the standard it must take all the effects of said vehicle.


Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.


I didnt say it took a hit anywhere.. that does not matter.

To be treated the same in all aspects.

An example:

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point (as any immobolized result only comes with a result of -1 hull point, its not possible to suffer an immobolized result without losing a hull point)

Vehicle B is immobolized with full hull points

Answer: No they are not the same in all area's.

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point

Vehicle B is immobolized and -1 hull point

Yes, these vehicles are now both the same.


You are confusing the issue.

Your counts as is looking at other things besides damage result. You are at looking at hull points.

The correct analogy is this:
Vic A - 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

Vic B - 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

Are the two the same? Yes they are.



For starters here is the drop pod rule:
Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


Now the only question that matters is how does a vehicle suffer an immobilized damage result? Once we figure that out we have to match the vehicles condition in all respects. Can you find a situation where a vehicle does not suffer a hull point in the process of suffering a immobilized damage result?


Again you are looking at more than the Damage Result and the rule doesnt say to count as anything other than the Damage Result.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 21:13:24


Post by: MarkyMark


suffered an immobilized damage result

ITs only telling us to treat it as what the result is, in all respects (i,e follow what the immobizled result is), it isnt telling us to apply the whole process though (hull then damage table result), this is where I disagree with you buddy.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 21:14:15


Post by: Tomb King


40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?


Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.



For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"


Yes, I can agree with that.
However, the rule is specific and says it counts as the damage result and nothing else. The HP loss if from the hit not from the damage result.
The damage result is just this:
BRB Vehicle Damage Chart: 5 - Immobilized wrote:
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.


The rule says its counts as the damage result and nothing else? I didnt see that in any of the rules i read. It says its treated as a vehicle that has suffered those effects. Not that its treated as being immobilized. See previous post to get to a point where a vehicle is immobilized. Every situation a vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point. So for it to meet the standard it must take all the effects of said vehicle.


Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.


I didnt say it took a hit anywhere.. that does not matter.

To be treated the same in all aspects.

An example:

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point (as any immobolized result only comes with a result of -1 hull point, its not possible to suffer an immobolized result without losing a hull point)

Vehicle B is immobolized with full hull points

Answer: No they are not the same in all area's.

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point

Vehicle B is immobolized and -1 hull point

Yes, these vehicles are now both the same.


You are confusing the issue.

Your counts as is looking at other things besides damage result. You are at looking at hull points.

The correct analogy is this:
Vic A - 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

Vic B - 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

Are the two the same? Yes they are.



For starters here is the drop pod rule:
Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


Now the only question that matters is how does a vehicle suffer an immobilized damage result? Once we figure that out we have to match the vehicles condition in all respects. Can you find a situation where a vehicle does not suffer a hull point in the process of suffering a immobilized damage result?


Again you are looking at more than the Damage Result and the rule doesnt say to count as anything other than the Damage Result.


It doesnt say suffer an immobilized result. You are mimicking a vehicle that has met that result.

If the rule stated the drop pod is immobilized. Or didn't address that it had to be the same in all respects then this wouldn't be an argument.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 21:16:30


Post by: insaniak


 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Your FAQ citation still does not say the Drop Pod suffers the loss of a Hull Point. It just says if one gets shot, penetrated, and has another Immobilised result then it does to Weapon Destroyed instead.

Which is an altogether different problem, since it's referring to 5th edition rules. Multiple Immobilised results don't count as weapon destroyed in 6th edition.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 21:47:59


Post by: 40k-noob


Tomb King wrote:

It doesnt say suffer an immobilized result. You are mimicking a vehicle that has met that result.

If the rule stated the drop pod is immobilized. Or didn't address that it had to be the same in all respects then this wouldn't be an argument.


You continue to insist that the the two (Vic A and Vic B) must be exactly the same but the rule explicitly forbids that.

For example:
Vic A(Rhino) gets immobilized = Can't move and -1 HP
should be the same for Vic B(Drop Pod)
Yet the rule is explicit in that the DP cannot be repaired while a Rhino can.
So your insistence that two must be the same is neither RAW nor RAI.

This is a special rule to affirm that a DP cannot move after landing and that is it.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 22:00:56


Post by: Tomb King


40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

It doesnt say suffer an immobilized result. You are mimicking a vehicle that has met that result.

If the rule stated the drop pod is immobilized. Or didn't address that it had to be the same in all respects then this wouldn't be an argument.


You continue to insist that the the two (Vic A and Vic B) must be exactly the same but the rule explicitly forbids that.

For example:
Vic A(Rhino) gets immobilized = Can't move and -1 HP
should be the same for Vic B(Drop Pod)
Yet the rule is explicit in that the DP cannot be repaired while a Rhino can.
So your insistence that two must be the same is neither RAW nor RAI.

This is a special rule to affirm that a DP cannot move after landing and that is it.

They are the same in all regards.
Except the rule includes this one exception: (which cannot be repaired in any way).


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 22:07:45


Post by: 40k-noob


 Tomb King wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
Tomb King wrote:

It doesnt say suffer an immobilized result. You are mimicking a vehicle that has met that result.

If the rule stated the drop pod is immobilized. Or didn't address that it had to be the same in all respects then this wouldn't be an argument.


You continue to insist that the the two (Vic A and Vic B) must be exactly the same but the rule explicitly forbids that.

For example:
Vic A(Rhino) gets immobilized = Can't move and -1 HP
should be the same for Vic B(Drop Pod)
Yet the rule is explicit in that the DP cannot be repaired while a Rhino can.
So your insistence that two must be the same is neither RAW nor RAI.

This is a special rule to affirm that a DP cannot move after landing and that is it.

They are the same in all regards.
Except the rule includes this one exception: (which cannot be repaired in any way).


so they are the same but not the same? Sounds like Animal Farm.

Oh well, I have made my case. I can't do anymore than that.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 22:54:42


Post by: barnowl


 Tomb King wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Luide wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.
You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/


Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)


We have rules backing up our argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?


No, you don't.. The drop pod rule does not say it suffers a glance and counts as immobile. It simply states the model counts as having suffered an immobilised damage result. C:SM under drop pods. There is no damage check, no save, nothing. Extrapolating from the DT FAQ is not RAW, it is stretching to find a RAI. There is nothing beyond opinion to enforce that a DP should lose a hull point, until GW puts out a FAQ stating that. It is a gray area. You can shout the DT FAq all you want, but it is not directly applicable to special rule units like DP or Sensor Towers, nor does the Immobile damage result automaticly remove a hull point

(Will check building rules as I think there is somethere that applies)


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 23:04:22


Post by: Tomb King


barnowl wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Luide wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.
You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/


Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)


We have rules backing up our argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?


No, you don't.. The drop pod rule does not say it suffers a glance and counts as immobile. It simply states the model counts as having suffered an immobilised damage result. C:SM under drop pods. There is no damage check, no save, nothing. Extrapolating from the DT FAQ is not RAW, it is stretching to find a RAI. There is nothing beyond opinion to enforce that a DP should lose a hull point, until GW puts out a FAQ stating that. It is a gray area. You can shout the DT FAq all you want, but it is not directly applicable to special rule units like DP or Sensor Towers, nor does the Immobile damage result automaticly remove a hull point

(Will check building rules as I think there is somethere that applies)


As stated before you probably wanna read the rest of thread before jumping into a solved portion and building an argument on it.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 23:40:13


Post by: Khalbrae


 Tomb King wrote:
We have rules backing up our argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?


So in other words, you shoot a vehicle with a krak missile, roll a penetrating hit (which causes a hull point to go missing) and then the damage chart gets rolled resulting in an immobilize causing another hull point to go? I hope you don't have too many arks in your army.

Edit:

Page 74 wrote:

Glancing hits:
If a glancing hit was scored, the vehicle loses I Hull Point.

Penetrating Hits:
If a penetrating hit was scored, the vehicle not only loses 1 Hull
Point, but also suffers additional damage. After deducting any
Hull Points, roll aD6 for each shot that penetrated the
vehicle's armour. Apply any appropriate modifiers (they are all
cumulative) and look up the result using the Vehicle Damage
table on the left. You must roll on the vehicle Damage table
even if the vehicle loses sufficient Hull Points to be Wrecked,
as there is still a chance that it Explodes!


So by your logic, the hull point gets deducted for the penetrating hit, then another for immobilize, and if another immobilize results comes up one something already immobilized it would take 3 hull points??? Where is the logic here?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 23:52:34


Post by: Tomb King


Khalbrae wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
We have rules backing up our argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?


So in other words, you shoot a vehicle with a krak missile, roll a penetrating hit (which causes a hull point to go missing) and then the damage chart gets rolled resulting in an immobilize causing another hull point to go? I hope you don't have too many arks in your army.


Not quite. Just identified that no matter what happened to get a vehicle immobilized every route to achieve that possible also lost a hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/08 23:52:36


Post by: barnowl


 Tomb King wrote:
barnowl wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Luide wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.
You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/


Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)


We have rules backing up our argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?


No, you don't.. The drop pod rule does not say it suffers a glance and counts as immobile. It simply states the model counts as having suffered an immobilised damage result. C:SM under drop pods. There is no damage check, no save, nothing. Extrapolating from the DT FAQ is not RAW, it is stretching to find a RAI. There is nothing beyond opinion to enforce that a DP should lose a hull point, until GW puts out a FAQ stating that. It is a gray area. You can shout the DT FAq all you want, but it is not directly applicable to special rule units like DP or Sensor Towers, nor does the Immobile damage result automaticly remove a hull point

(Will check building rules as I think there is somethere that applies)


As stated before you probably wanna read the rest of thread before jumping into a solved portion and building an argument on it.


I did, and I don't think you solved anything, hence my post.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 00:00:22


Post by: Khalbrae


The Rulebook specifically states as per my quotation that a hull point is removed when the unit suffers a glancing or penetrating hit before any roll is made on the table. It is the glance/pen according to the rules that causes the point loss.

Note that I am an Eldar player and don't have any vested interest in preserving drop pods (things can rot for all I care) but the immobilized result on the damage table does not cause an additional hull point loss unless already immobilized.

Failing a difficult terrain test (something entirely situational) has been retroactively been changed to be a pseudo-hit. It removes a hull point as your vehicle takes damage from the bushes or whatever gunk up your wheels/exhaust ports. But that clearly is stated in the FAQ to only apply to Difficult terrain tests.

The Drop pods start the game immobilized, they do not take any sort of test or hit in order to gain the immobilized result. To say that anything causing immobilized removes a hull point is to essentially argue for immobilize results removing a second hull point from any vehicle.

(Says the pointed eared interloper)

It is treated as though it rolled a 5 on the chart, without taking the hit to do so.

As always, if you truly want to argue with your opponent about it though you can give them two options:

1: Friendly roll off.
2: Pick up and leave as it's not worth anybody's time getting upset over little plastic men.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 01:24:07


Post by: Happyjew


I can't speak for anyone else here, but regardless of RAW (and I personally agree with the HP loss) I don't play with the loss.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 01:56:02


Post by: kaapelikala


If Immobilized result causes the loss of a Hull Point (Drop Pod, Dangerous Terrain fail, etc.), then does a Penetrating hit that causes Immobilized cause the loss of two (2) Hull Points? One from the Penetrating hit, the other from Immobilized.

See FAQ for the part about including Hull Point loss in Immobilized.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 02:03:06


Post by: KingCracker


Luide wrote:
 KingCracker wrote:
This is correct. No matter HOW you look at it. A vehicle can only suffer from an immobilization and lose a hull point if you rolled on the damage chart. Period. Since you dont roll on the VDC when dropping in, you do not lose a hull point. It only mentions being immobile so that there isnt confusion about weather it can move or not
Please read the FAQ before making unfounded arguments like this. I've included it here and underlined the relevant portion:

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”.


Note that this FAQ explicitly states that your argument is wrong. Vehicle can will lose hull point from being Immobilized, even if they did not rell on the damage chart. Period.
Edit: In fact, that FAQ states that suffering Immobilised result always includes losing one Hull Point.




OK now youre taking things a bit out of context. Youre using dangerous terrain tests, to explain why someone using a Drop pod gets an auto HP taken away? Man, your gaming group must LOVE playing with you.


I dont care how you throw rules and FAQs around and pretend to be all knowing, YOU DO NOT take a HP off a DropPod just because it comes into play. Not how the game works.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 02:20:54


Post by: uberjoras


Khalbrae wrote:

(Says the pointed eared interloper)


QFT. Honestly, everyone pointing to FAQ's and such - y'all need to read your rulebooks before your FAQ's. I see older players make more mistakes because they think they know the rules but have things mistaken/lumped together.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 02:41:31


Post by: liturgies of blood


 kaapelikala wrote:
If Immobilized result causes the loss of a Hull Point (Drop Pod, Dangerous Terrain fail, etc.), then does a Penetrating hit that causes Immobilized cause the loss of two (2) Hull Points? One from the Penetrating hit, the other from Immobilized.

See FAQ for the part about including Hull Point loss in Immobilized.


No. The FAQ only applies to Dangerous terrain.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 03:22:00


Post by: Tomb King


uberjoras wrote:
Khalbrae wrote:

(Says the pointed eared interloper)


QFT. Honestly, everyone pointing to FAQ's and such - y'all need to read your rulebooks before your FAQ's. I see older players make more mistakes because they think they know the rules but have things mistaken/lumped together.


In this case the faq ammends the rulebook.

No a immobilized result does not make a model lose a hull point unless its already immobilized. That isnt why the drop pod loses a hull point when it becomes immobilized. It loses a hull point because it is treated in all aspects the same as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result. To be treated the same it would have to be in the same condition as said vehicle. No matter how a vehicle becomes immobolized whether it be from a penetrated result and a 5 on the damage table or if it fails a difficult/dangerous terrain check it loses a hull point. Basically for a vehicle to be immobilized in 40k it had to suffer a loss of a hull point to get there. So to treat it 100% like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result it too would have to be -1 hull point.

See the below rule for drop pod called immobile for further clarification on why this standard is set.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 03:38:26


Post by: liturgies of blood


An immobilised result does not include -1HP though it is just the stuff listed under immobilised.
So a vehicle suffers a pen, it looses 1 Hp and then it gains an immobilised result. It's an a causes b and c, just because a causes c does not mean that c happening mandates b.

You are adding in more than is being said.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 03:40:50


Post by: Grey Templar


Indeed,

A mandates B+C

E mandates C.

It is fallacious to assume that E mandates B because it has C.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 03:50:34


Post by: rigeld2


No, A mandates B (which is clarified to include C).
D mandates B.

You're asserting that B only sometimes includes C.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 03:55:33


Post by: Tomb King


Can you all name a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized without losing a hull point?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 03:55:34


Post by: Grey Templar


Not the way I read it.


The rules say that when you take a Penetrating hit(A) you lose a Hull Point(B) and roll on the damage chart(C)

E(Drop Pod) mandates you automatically become Immobilized(C, kinda)

You are erroniously asserting that C mandates B when it never says that anywhere and they are clearly seperate results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tomb King wrote:
Can you all name a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized without losing a hull point?


Sure, Drop Pods.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 04:00:53


Post by: rigeld2


According to the DT rules, an Immobilized result includes Hull Point loss.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 04:05:38


Post by: Tomb King


 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 04:13:14


Post by: Eldercaveman


 Tomb King wrote:
 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?


When a vehicle suffers an immobilised result, unless it is already immobilised it doesn't lose a hull point, it loses a hull point when it is glanced or penetrated. There is a subtle but VERY important difference there.

Also every one posting the FAQ regarding losing a hull point as well as an immobilised result, it has absolutely no relevance to this situation, the FAQ states that is only for DT, otherwise it would say, when a vehicle becomes Immobilised from a Dangerous terrain test, or by any other means, does it also lose a hull point?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 04:29:42


Post by: Tomb King


Eldercaveman wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?


When a vehicle suffers an immobilised result, unless it is already immobilised it doesn't lose a hull point, it loses a hull point when it is glanced or penetrated. There is a subtle but VERY important difference there.

Also every one posting the FAQ regarding losing a hull point as well as an immobilised result, it has absolutely no relevance to this situation, the FAQ states that is only for DT, otherwise it would say, when a vehicle becomes Immobilised from a Dangerous terrain test, or by any other means, does it also lose a hull point?


Then how can it be the same as a vehicle that suffered an immobilized result if it is not the same condition? In every situation in which a vehicle suffered that result it is also without a whole point in the process. The faq just states another way this process comes to be. For the vehicle to be the same in all respects. It needs to be -1 HP.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 04:39:19


Post by: Eldercaveman


 Tomb King wrote:
Eldercaveman wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?


When a vehicle suffers an immobilised result, unless it is already immobilised it doesn't lose a hull point, it loses a hull point when it is glanced or penetrated. There is a subtle but VERY important difference there.

Also every one posting the FAQ regarding losing a hull point as well as an immobilised result, it has absolutely no relevance to this situation, the FAQ states that is only for DT, otherwise it would say, when a vehicle becomes Immobilised from a Dangerous terrain test, or by any other means, does it also lose a hull point?


Then how can it be the same as a vehicle that suffered an immobilized result if it is not the same condition? In every situation in which a vehicle suffered that result it is also without a whole point in the process. The faq just states another way this process comes to be. For the vehicle to be the same in all respects. It needs to be -1 HP.


Then why no FAQ? If they went to the trouble of explaining it for DT tests, why not Drop Pods? And please don't say because its GW.


Edit*

Sorry just realised that I completely ignored your question, the wording is a carry over from 5th, and I think it needs an errata. Do Dark Angels have Drop Pods? If so this may all become mute when they get released on Saturday as they will have the 6th Ed, wording for the Drop pods.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 04:43:15


Post by: Tomb King


Eldercaveman wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
Eldercaveman wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?


When a vehicle suffers an immobilised result, unless it is already immobilised it doesn't lose a hull point, it loses a hull point when it is glanced or penetrated. There is a subtle but VERY important difference there.

Also every one posting the FAQ regarding losing a hull point as well as an immobilised result, it has absolutely no relevance to this situation, the FAQ states that is only for DT, otherwise it would say, when a vehicle becomes Immobilised from a Dangerous terrain test, or by any other means, does it also lose a hull point?


Then how can it be the same as a vehicle that suffered an immobilized result if it is not the same condition? In every situation in which a vehicle suffered that result it is also without a whole point in the process. The faq just states another way this process comes to be. For the vehicle to be the same in all respects. It needs to be -1 HP.


Then why no FAQ? If they went to the trouble of explaining it for DT tests, why not Drop Pods? And please don't say because its GW.


Is this really the first time that question has been asked in this particular forum? Either way I am sure of my answer and you all are sure of yours... you will have to get with the TO before the event. Before this thread I assumed everyone was taking the penalty but I usually only play locally and big tournaments.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 04:47:08


Post by: Eldercaveman


 Tomb King wrote:
Eldercaveman wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
Eldercaveman wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
 Tomb King 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 immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).


How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?


When a vehicle suffers an immobilised result, unless it is already immobilised it doesn't lose a hull point, it loses a hull point when it is glanced or penetrated. There is a subtle but VERY important difference there.

Also every one posting the FAQ regarding losing a hull point as well as an immobilised result, it has absolutely no relevance to this situation, the FAQ states that is only for DT, otherwise it would say, when a vehicle becomes Immobilised from a Dangerous terrain test, or by any other means, does it also lose a hull point?


Then how can it be the same as a vehicle that suffered an immobilized result if it is not the same condition? In every situation in which a vehicle suffered that result it is also without a whole point in the process. The faq just states another way this process comes to be. For the vehicle to be the same in all respects. It needs to be -1 HP.


Then why no FAQ? If they went to the trouble of explaining it for DT tests, why not Drop Pods? And please don't say because its GW.


Is this really the first time that question has been asked in this particular forum? Either way I am sure of my answer and you all are sure of yours... you will have to get with the TO before the event. Before this thread I assumed everyone was taking the penalty but I usually only play locally and big tournaments.


Can you please read my post-post editing, so I don't come across as using that as an avoidance tactic, I don't play in tournaments, and OP you will best to resolve this in your own way locally until there is an official wording form the powers that be.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 05:06:29


Post by: Mannahnin


I concur that Drop Pods suffer the hull point loss. The Dangerous Terrain ruling is a FAQ clarification, not an errata, and as such establishes a clear precedent.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 05:51:49


Post by: puma713


 Tomb King wrote:
Can you all name a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized without losing a hull point?


It doesn't matter if it happens one time or a hundred times. The point is, it doesn't happen this time.

To assume that because it happens 99 times out of 100, that it also happens that 100th time is a logical fallacy. It is the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. You cannot determine whether or not one example is true or false because there are 99 other examples like it that are true.

It is simply incorrect. If you see 99 red cars drive by, it is logically fallacious to say that the next one is going to be red.

Regardless of how many other examples there are, this one, very specific example says nothing of DT tests, glancing or penetrating hits. So, since you have not been told to use any of the three conventions to remove a hull point, you have no permission to take a hull point away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tomb King wrote:


For starters a drop pod does not start the game immobilized. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to put it anywhere on the board during your movement phase.


Also, this is wrong. While you may be correct about the drop pod itself, there are immobile units that move onto the board during their movement phase. Once again, you're applying faulty logic.

That, and page 125 defines how they get onto the board. First paragraph.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 06:02:54


Post by: Tomb King


 puma713 wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
Can you all name a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized without losing a hull point?


It doesn't matter if it happens one time or a hundred times. The point is, it doesn't happen this time.

To assume that because it happens 99 times out of 100, that it also happens that 100th time is a logical fallacy. It is the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. You cannot determine whether or not one example is true or false because there are 99 other examples like it that are true.

It is simply incorrect. If you see 99 red cars drive by, it is logically fallacious to say that the next one is going to be red.

Regardless of how many other examples there are, this one, very specific example says nothing of DT tests, glancing or penetrating hits. So, since you have not been told to use any of the three conventions to remove a hull point, you have no permission to take a hull point away.


Not 99 out of 100. I only bet 100%


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 puma713 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:


For starters a drop pod does not start the game immobilized. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to put it anywhere on the board during your movement phase.


Also, this is wrong. While you may be correct about the drop pod itself, there are immobile units that move onto the board during their movement phase. Once again, you're applying faulty logic.

That, and page 125 defines how they get onto the board. First paragraph.



Actually per drop pod rules they become immobile once it has entered the battle.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 06:10:28


Post by: puma713


 Mannahnin wrote:
I concur that Drop Pods suffer the hull point loss. The Dangerous Terrain ruling is a FAQ clarification, not an errata, and as such establishes a clear precedent.


A precedent for what? That failing a DT causes a loss of a hull point? That's great.

Too bad the Drop pod didn't fail a DT. It also didn't suffer a glancing or penetrating hit. What it did do, is suffer an immobilised result on the damage table. To which you may argue, "How do you do that without suffering a hit, or failing a DT test?" To which the answer is, You enter play as a drop pod.

All you need to know is that the rules tell you that it suffered an immobilised damage result. It did not do any of the three things that give you permission to remove a hull point.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tomb King wrote:


Not 99 out of 100. I only bet 100%


And hence you defend a flawed argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tomb King wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:


For starters a drop pod does not start the game immobilized. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to put it anywhere on the board during your movement phase.


Also, this is wrong. While you may be correct about the drop pod itself, there are immobile units that move onto the board during their movement phase. Once again, you're applying faulty logic.

That, and page 125 defines how they get onto the board. First paragraph.



Actually per drop pod rules they become immobile once it has entered the battle.


Which is why I said, ". . you may be correct about the drop pod itself, . . ."




Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 06:24:20


Post by: insaniak


 puma713 wrote:
 Mannahnin wrote:
I concur that Drop Pods suffer the hull point loss. The Dangerous Terrain ruling is a FAQ clarification, not an errata, and as such establishes a clear precedent.


A precedent for what? That failing a DT causes a loss of a hull point? That's great.

No, it sets the precedent in that it shows (because of how it is worded) that GW consider the loss of the hull point to be a part of taking damage. The vehicle is immobilised - including losing a hull point. That hull point can only be 'included' if it is a part of being immobilised. Otherwise, it's additional, not [/i]included[/i].


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 06:37:14


Post by: puma713


 insaniak wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 Mannahnin wrote:
I concur that Drop Pods suffer the hull point loss. The Dangerous Terrain ruling is a FAQ clarification, not an errata, and as such establishes a clear precedent.


A precedent for what? That failing a DT causes a loss of a hull point? That's great.

No, it sets the precedent in that it shows (because of how it is worded) that GW consider the loss of the hull point to be a part of taking damage. The vehicle is immobilised - including losing a hull point. That hull point can only be 'included' if it is a part of being immobilised. Otherwise, it's additional, not [/i]included[/i].


Okay, I can see what he means by precedent. You still have to make a logical leap to say that because three types of immobilised results end in the loss of a hull point, then so does a drop pod's landing.

A hull point is lost because a vehicle did one of three things: took a glancing hit, took a penetrating hit, or failed a DT test. Did the drop pod do any of those things?






Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 06:39:24


Post by: Mannahnin


I mis-wrote that it's not an errata- of course it is an errata. There's actually both a FAQ and an errata, but the phrasing of the errata expresses that suffering the loss of a hull point is the consequence of being Immobilized, and the FAQ question is where it tells us that just by landing, a drop pod is treated as having suffered an Immobilized result.

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”.


Then, in light of that, read what the SM FAQ has to say about Drop Pods:

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

Now this FAQ answer needs to be updated, as it is clearly referring to 5th ed vehicle damage processes (a second Immobilized result becoming Weapon Destroyed, as opposed to instead causing loss of two hull points, as it does now). Still, the meaning here is clear. A drop pod is treated as having suffered an Immobilized damage result.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 06:45:29


Post by: puma713


 Mannahnin wrote:
A drop pod is treated as having suffered an Immobilized damage result.


I completely agree. However, there is no preclusion for losing a hull point and rolling on the damage table. You don't lose a hull point because you rolled on the damage table, you lose a hull point because you did one of the three things I listed above. The drop pod, no matter how it received its roll on the damage table, did not suffer a glancing hit, a penetrating hit or a failed DT test.

It is treated as if it it rolled a 5 on the damage table in all respects. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how it got to roll on the damage table itself (if it was a roll).

Edit:

I guess the point we'll have to agree to disagree on is the fact that the FAQ gives you permission to remove a hull point simply by virtue of mentioning it in accordance with immobilised results. I don't think that is enough to give you permission, and you do. It reminds me alot of the old FAQ answer about splitting combat squads from reserves. Everyone thought that meant that you couldn't split at all when in fact it meant that you simply couldn't drop one in and leave one out. Folks read the answer to a single question and applied it to the rules in general and caused a misinterpretation of the FAQ.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 06:48:54


Post by: Mannahnin


The errata on vehicles and dangerous terrain tests makes clear that if you suffer an immoblized result, even if it wasn't; via taking a glancing or penetrating hit, you lose a hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 06:51:42


Post by: puma713


 Mannahnin wrote:
The errata on vehicles and dangerous terrain tests makes clear that if you suffer an immoblized result, even if it wasn't; via taking a glancing or penetrating hit, you lose a hull point.


I disagree. If it was clear, there would be no discussion. I think all the FAQ did was clarify that if you fail a DT test, that you lose a hull point. It has no bearing whatsoever on any other way that you might become immobilised.

Again, as I said above, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 06:55:31


Post by: Mannahnin


I think you're right that we're at an impasse. For me, them saying "...suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”, clearly communicates that suffering an Immobilized result inevitably includes losing a hull point, no matter how you managed to suffer that Immobilized result.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 07:00:05


Post by: puma713


 Mannahnin wrote:
I think you're right that we're at an impasse. For me, them saying "...suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”, clearly communicates that suffering an Immobilized result inevitably includes losing a hull point, no matter how you managed to suffer that Immobilized result.


I would agree with you if that's all the sentence said. But the first half of the sentence makes it clear (to me) that they're talking about failing a dangerous terrain test. It is another example of poor wording by GW - they forget that suffering a glancing hit, penetrating hit or failing a DT test is not the only way to become immobilised and so leave open a question by answering another one.

Classic GW.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 08:07:22


Post by: MarkyMark


 Mannahnin wrote:
I think you're right that we're at an impasse. For me, them saying "...suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”, clearly communicates that suffering an Immobilized result inevitably includes losing a hull point, no matter how you managed to suffer that Immobilized result.

But that is still failing a DT (you get to roll dice) having a glance or pen (you get to roll dice) but with how you would play a drop pod regardless of how you are going to put it down its instantly immobizled and loses a HP without rolling dice. Immoilized results are usually in game while playing this is simply deploying the drop pod so i would say this is the precedent


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 13:45:42


Post by: FenixZero


 Mannahnin wrote:
The errata on vehicles and dangerous terrain tests makes clear that if you suffer an immoblized result, even if it wasn't; via taking a glancing or penetrating hit, you lose a hull point.

To me, what is clear that the DT test FAQ is that if a *mobile* vehicle becomes immobile, that can only be achieved by some form of damage to said vehicle.

OTH, if a vehicle is designed to be immobile, like Drop Pods and various weapons platforms, then they are exempt from the from damage because they are designed to be immobilized. It wasn't damage that inflicted their immobility, it was their design.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 13:49:06


Post by: rigeld2


That might be what's intended.
But the rule says its suffered exactly as a damage result.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 13:55:22


Post by: KingCracker


FenixZero wrote:
 Mannahnin wrote:
The errata on vehicles and dangerous terrain tests makes clear that if you suffer an immoblized result, even if it wasn't; via taking a glancing or penetrating hit, you lose a hull point.

To me, what is clear that the DT test FAQ is that if a *mobile* vehicle becomes immobile, that can only be achieved by some form of damage to said vehicle.

OTH, if a vehicle is designed to be immobile, like Drop Pods and various weapons platforms, then they are exempt from the from damage because they are designed to be immobilized. It wasn't damage that inflicted their immobility, it was their design.



Agreed. Next you all are going to say that a SPOD looses a wound because it too comes into play like a Drop Pod and is also immobile.


Immobile is a result, it is what it is. Just because you normally get that result from DT test or through pens, doesnt mean that the result itself causes the HP loss. Only the DT test being failed OR taking a glance or pen causes HP loss


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 14:07:47


Post by: Happyjew


Except the Spod is not immobilised exactly like a vehicle. It just cannot move for any reason.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 14:17:23


Post by: Formosa


Ok I see what both sides are saying but here is something I dont understand, how does the faq about how dang test have anything to do with counting as immobile?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 14:29:36


Post by: Happyjew


Because prior to the FAQ, the hull point loss was tied into suffering a glancing/penetrating hit. After the FAQ suffering a result on the Damage Table includes the loss of a hull point. Since (with the possible exception of Immobile vehicles) there is no way to be Immobilised without losing a hull point, logically, if an immobile vehicle is treated in all respects as a vehicle that suffered an Immobilised result, that would include the loss of a hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 15:01:18


Post by: beigeknight


I would think that if it was intended for a drop pod to lose a hull point when it came into play there would have been something in the C:SM FAQ for the drop pod entry that said "...and loses one hull point."


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 15:06:55


Post by: FenixZero


It just doesn't seem intended to me, why would you take damage from arriving in your intended manner? I understand a mishap or scatter onto DT, but just coming and losing a hull point seems stupid TBH.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 15:28:48


Post by: Happyjew


I agree that it does not seem intended, however, add it is written...

On that note I do not force my opponents to take the hull point loss.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 15:43:14


Post by: beigeknight


Well, as it's written you lose a hull point from taking a glancing or penetrating hit or failing a DT test. Drop Pods don't qualify for any of those, unless it's dropped in DT.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 15:44:59


Post by: 40k-noob


 Happyjew wrote:
Because prior to the FAQ, the hull point loss was tied into suffering a glancing/penetrating hit. After the FAQ suffering a result on the Damage Table includes the loss of a hull point. Since (with the possible exception of Immobile vehicles) there is no way to be Immobilised without losing a hull point, logically, if an immobile vehicle is treated in all respects as a vehicle that suffered an Immobilised result, that would include the loss of a hull point.


This is wrong.

The FAQ/Errata is not stating that the HP loss is included in the Immobilized damage result, it is saying that it is included in the damage as a result of failing the test.
In other words, if you fail the test you suffer A+B.

To say otherwise would mean that vehicles that do suffer a Pen hit and are then Immobilized from the damage roll would lose two HP from one hit and that is clearly not true.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 15:51:58


Post by: Rorschach9


A drop pod, as per it's rules in C:SM has the special rule 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)"

How do you treat a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised damage result? : "An immoblisied vehicle cannot move - it may not even pivot, but it's turret may continue to rotate to select targets and other weapons retain their normal arcs of fire. Any Immobilised results suffered by an already immoblised vehicle instead remove an additional Hull Point".

The Drop Pod "Counts in all respects as a vehicle that HAS suffered an immobilised damage result", not that "is in the process of suffering" the result. A vehicle that has already suffered an immoblised damage result is treated as quoted above. No more, no less.

The drop pod is not sufferING an immobilised result. It is treated as a vehicle that HAS SUFFERED an immobilised result. The Immobilised result, having already been suffered, does not have the loss of further HP just because it's immobilised (unless you get another immobilised result on the already immobilised vehicle).

There is no DT test. There is no pen/glance. There is nothing about a loss of a hull point. The constant quotes of the FAQ apply to a specific circumstance and are not generic rules clarifications. If you assume that a FAQ reply applies to ALL circumstances that are remotely related (rather than the specific situation outlined in the FAQ) then the FAQ's break the game even more than it already is.




Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 16:53:58


Post by: Khalbrae


People seem to be repeating themselves ad nauseum and no listenng to each other.

I suppose I must excuse myself from this conversation.

Remember:

1: I do not make people take a hull point loss and I don't even play SM
2: You should always do a friendly roll off if possible.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 18:18:26


Post by: barnowl


 KingCracker wrote:

Agreed. Next you all are going to say that a SPOD looses a wound because it too comes into play like a Drop Pod and is also immobile.


Immobile is a result, it is what it is. Just because you normally get that result from DT test or through pens, doesnt mean that the result itself causes the HP loss. Only the DT test being failed OR taking a glance or pen causes HP loss


Leave my Spores out of this, GW has already nerf batted us enough.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 18:31:05


Post by: Tomb King


FenixZero wrote:
It just doesn't seem intended to me, why would you take damage from arriving in your intended manner? I understand a mishap or scatter onto DT, but just coming and losing a hull point seems stupid TBH.



That is precisely why most arguments such as this find there way in the You Make Da Call forum. It sucks and people dont like negative things to happen even if we could prove 99.9% that it loses the hull points people would still fight it because they only see the negative change. Its a 35 point open topped vehicle that you can now land and disembark up to 6" away from. That is quite an advantageous change to the previous stand huddled up next to the door.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 19:55:23


Post by: insaniak


FenixZero wrote:
It just doesn't seem intended to me, why would you take damage from arriving in your intended manner? I understand a mishap or scatter onto DT, but just coming and losing a hull point seems stupid TBH.

When the drop pod was first introduced as a model, you got victory points just for damaging vehicles... and drop pods granted victory points just by deploying, as they counted as having suffered an immobilised result, and so were considered damaged the moment they deployed.

It took a GW FAQ for people to accept that that was the correct way to play due to it being mind-numbingly stupid as well. But it was how the rules were written to work.



So yes, it would be lovely to think that losing a hull point just for landing would be silly and that there is no way GW intended it... but past experience suggests that they are just as likely, if not more so, to rule the other way on this one.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 20:00:49


Post by: FenixZero


 insaniak wrote:
FenixZero wrote:
It just doesn't seem intended to me, why would you take damage from arriving in your intended manner? I understand a mishap or scatter onto DT, but just coming and losing a hull point seems stupid TBH.

When the drop pod was first introduced as a model, you got victory points just for damaging vehicles... and drop pods granted victory points just by deploying, as they counted as having suffered an immobilised result, and so were considered damaged the moment they deployed.

It took a GW FAQ for people to accept that that was the correct way to play due to it being mind-numbingly stupid as well. But it was how the rules were written to work.



So yes, it would be lovely to think that losing a hull point just for landing would be silly and that there is no way GW intended it... but past experience suggests that they are just as likely, if not more so, to rule the other way on this one.

I left D&D to play this game why again?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 20:36:35


Post by: -Nazdreg-


OK two things to this:

1.: Following the interpretation of an auto-hull point loss would necessarily result in the drop pod being wrecked as soon as it fails a dangerous terrain test from landing.

2: Suffering an immobilized result =! counts as immobile (immobile is in fact not even described in the rules...)
But even if we paraphrase it to "counts as having suffered an immobilized result" (which is imho no strict RAW especially together with forcing a precedence from the dangerous terrain FAQ) then we must define when it actually suffered the result. Because stripping off a HP afterwards isn't legal imho.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 20:43:51


Post by: 40k-noob


FenixZero wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
FenixZero wrote:
It just doesn't seem intended to me, why would you take damage from arriving in your intended manner? I understand a mishap or scatter onto DT, but just coming and losing a hull point seems stupid TBH.

When the drop pod was first introduced as a model, you got victory points just for damaging vehicles... and drop pods granted victory points just by deploying, as they counted as having suffered an immobilised result, and so were considered damaged the moment they deployed.

It took a GW FAQ for people to accept that that was the correct way to play due to it being mind-numbingly stupid as well. But it was how the rules were written to work.



So yes, it would be lovely to think that losing a hull point just for landing would be silly and that there is no way GW intended it... but past experience suggests that they are just as likely, if not more so, to rule the other way on this one.

I left D&D to play this game why again?


Because you wanted to hang with the Cool Nerds!!


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 20:45:03


Post by: KingCracker


 Happyjew wrote:
Except the Spod is not immobilised exactly like a vehicle. It just cannot move for any reason.



Exactly. Which is the same reason they said the drop pod is immobile. Because its treated like a vehicle otherwise, and they need a reason to tell you WHY it cannot move.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 20:51:47


Post by: puma713


 Tomb King wrote:
It sucks and people dont like negative things to happen even if we could prove 99.9% that it loses the hull points people would still fight it because they only see the negative change.


Or simply because they don't agree with the line of reasoning that you've presented. Someone that doesn't play Space Marines in any way, shape or form would probably fall into the category of simply not agreeing, since the ruling would do nothing but benefit them.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 20:54:25


Post by: insaniak


 -Nazdreg- wrote:
2: Suffering an immobilized result =! counts as immobile (immobile is in fact not even described in the rules...)

Uh... Immobile is the same as having suffered an Immobilised result, and this is described in the Drop Pod rules in the SM codex...


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 21:00:10


Post by: -Nazdreg-


@Insaniak

OK I stand corrected. Proper reading is always quite good...
But there is still the discrepancy of "having suffered" and "is suffering" concerning HP.
And the FAQ is still about immobilized results from failed dangerous terain tests and not about pen results or immobilized results in general.
This connection is made up imho.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 21:06:42


Post by: insaniak


The specific scenario being dealt with by the FAQ is DT, yes.

But the response given is tying the HP loss in with the damage. What the FAQ is saying is that suffering an Immobilised damage result includes losing a hull point.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 21:14:28


Post by: puma713


 insaniak wrote:
 -Nazdreg- wrote:
2: Suffering an immobilized result =! counts as immobile (immobile is in fact not even described in the rules...)

Uh... Immobile is the same as having suffered an Immobilised result, and this is described in the Drop Pod rules in the SM codex...


Nice! So all fortifications lose a hull point at the start of the game! Woot.

Edit:

I realize you were talking about Immobile from the Drop Pods rules. . . .

And that buildings don't use hull points. . .



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 21:52:28


Post by: 40k-noob


 insaniak wrote:
The specific scenario being dealt with by the FAQ is DT, yes.

But the response given is tying the HP loss in with the damage. What the FAQ is saying is that suffering an Immobilised damage result includes losing a hull point.


No it does not, it says that the failing the Dangerous Terrain Test includes a HP loss not suffering an Immobilised damage result.

The FAQ/Erata is updating the rules for Vehicles and a failed Test results in being immobilized and the loss of an HP, not that the vehicle damage result itself includes an HP loss.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 22:07:55


Post by: Lungpickle


Did the drop pod fail a dangerous terrain test? Did it just land? Its immobilized due to its method of entry to the battle and it has no wheels Its not suffering an imobilized hit, terrain hit or anything of the sort its just immoblile. As templar pointed out "The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit. " Its a valid point and its not taking a angerous terrain test like vehicles rolling a 1 so this argument is moot. I think


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 22:51:15


Post by: rigeld2


40k-noob wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
The specific scenario being dealt with by the FAQ is DT, yes.

But the response given is tying the HP loss in with the damage. What the FAQ is saying is that suffering an Immobilised damage result includes losing a hull point.


No it does not, it says that the failing the Dangerous Terrain Test includes a HP loss not suffering an Immobilised damage result.

The FAQ/Erata is updating the rules for Vehicles and a failed Test results in being immobilized and the loss of an HP, not that the vehicle damage result itself includes an HP loss.

No, it says that failing a DT test causes an immobilize result (including the loss of a hull point). Meaning that the hull point loss is tied to the immobilize result.

Pleas actually read and post the FAQ before saying its not tied to the immobilize result.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 22:59:49


Post by: liturgies of blood


rigeld2 wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
The specific scenario being dealt with by the FAQ is DT, yes.

But the response given is tying the HP loss in with the damage. What the FAQ is saying is that suffering an Immobilised damage result includes losing a hull point.


No it does not, it says that the failing the Dangerous Terrain Test includes a HP loss not suffering an Immobilised damage result.

The FAQ/Erata is updating the rules for Vehicles and a failed Test results in being immobilized and the loss of an HP, not that the vehicle damage result itself includes an HP loss.

No, it says that failing a DT test causes an immobilize result (including the loss of a hull point). Meaning that the hull point loss is tied to the immobilize result.

Pleas actually read and post the FAQ before saying its not tied to the immobilize result.

But the issue that you get is that the steps of dealing with a pen are dock a HP and then roll on the chart and apply the result.
What you get is then roll for damage, if you get an immobilisers result dock another HP because the loss of a hull point is tied to the immobilised result.
Do A(take the pen), then B (dock the HP), apply C (the roll on the table and apply the result).
If the immobilised result is tied to the loss of a HP then you loose two when you take a pen and roll that result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What the FAQ is saying is that the immobilised result and the HP is tied to failing the DT test.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 23:06:29


Post by: insaniak


 liturgies of blood wrote:
What the FAQ is saying is that the immobilised result and the HP is tied to failing the DT test.

It's really not.

What the FAQ says is that the vehicle suffers an immobilised result including the loss of a HP.

That 'including' means that the loss of the hull point is intrinsically tied to the immobilised result... because it is included within it. If it said that the vehicle sfuffers an immobilised result and also loses a hull point, then the hull point loss would be tied to the DT test rather than the damage.

If I tell you that you have to get dressed, including putting on pants, that doesn't mean that putting on pants is separate to getting dressed. It's an included part of the process... I'm just mentioning it specifically to ensure that you remember to include it.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 23:28:16


Post by: clively


I'm with 40k-noob here.

A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point.


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


The loss of the hull point in this case is only happening due to taking damage as a penetrating hit which was caused by the DT test.

Now because the hit isn't being rolled for instead it is simply assigned due to the more specific DT rule then for clarification in this specific case not only are you are being immobilized you are also losing a HP.

In no way is it attempting to construe a relationship between Immobilization and HP loss. Those are two different things. HP loss is due to the damage caused by the penetrating hit. The word "including" is obviously just making sure that the HP loss is accounted for in the automatic penetration from DT. The comma is important in separating out the ideas of the sentence.

Further, the second FAQ ruling doesn't say roll on the table and makes no reference to losing a HP. As a matter of fact neither the BRB nor the SM codex state that you should look at the DT rules unless you landed in DT when deep striking. So those rules don't apply.

Instead the rules are clear that it simply counts as being immobilized, not counts as having received a penetrating hit resulting in immobilization. Therefore HP loss does not occur.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 insaniak wrote:


If I tell you that you have to get dressed, including putting on pants, that doesn't mean that putting on pants is separate to getting dressed. It's an included part of the process... I'm just mentioning it specifically to ensure that you remember to include it.


Actually, in your example it is a separate command. Getting dressed might be putting on a skirt or shorts or even just a bathing suit. Whereas you are explicitly saying as part of this command you want pants to be worn.

We could get into the semantics of the word including: "contain as a secondary or subordinate element", "consider with or place into a group, class or total" if you wanted but really all that matters is that the additional item is to be considered along with the prior item thereby creating a new whole. It's not a command that all instances of the prior item should now be merged with the secondary one.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 23:36:55


Post by: insaniak


clively wrote:
The loss of the hull point in this case is only happening due to taking damage as a penetrating hit which was caused by the DT test.

Where in the DT rules does it mention a penetrating hit?


...not only are you are being immobilized you are also losing a HP.

Again, though, it doesn't say 'also', which would make it an additional effect. It says 'including'... which means it is included.



Instead the rules are clear that it simply counts as being immobilized, not counts as having received a penetrating hit resulting in immobilization. Therefore HP loss does not occur.

Except that the FAQ makes a point of mentioning that being immobilised includes losing a hull point...


Actually, in your example it is a separate command.

No, it isn't. Because 'including' means that something is 'included'.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 23:44:10


Post by: puma713


 insaniak wrote:


If I tell you that you have to get dressed, including putting on pants, that doesn't mean that putting on pants is separate to getting dressed. It's an included part of the process... I'm just mentioning it specifically to ensure that you remember to include it.


I notice that you keep leaving out the qualifier in the sentence. If you said:

When you leave the house, you have to get dressed, including putting on pants!

Do I have to include pants if I'm not leaving the house? If so, why?



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 23:46:01


Post by: rigeld2


 puma713 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:


If I tell you that you have to get dressed, including putting on pants, that doesn't mean that putting on pants is separate to getting dressed. It's an included part of the process... I'm just mentioning it specifically to ensure that you remember to include it.


I notice that you keep leaving out the qualifier in the sentence. If you said:

When you leave the house, you have to get dressed, including putting on pants!

Do I have to include pants if I'm not leaving the house? If so, why?

No, but if you're getting dressed you do.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 23:47:34


Post by: Rorschach9


 insaniak wrote:

Except that the FAQ makes a point of mentioning that being immobilised FROM FAILING A DIFFICULT TERRAIN TEST includes losing a hull point....





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 puma713 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:


If I tell you that you have to get dressed, including putting on pants, that doesn't mean that putting on pants is separate to getting dressed. It's an included part of the process... I'm just mentioning it specifically to ensure that you remember to include it.


I notice that you keep leaving out the qualifier in the sentence. If you said:

When you leave the house, you have to get dressed, including putting on pants!

Do I have to include pants if I'm not leaving the house? If so, why?



This works well by exchanging the words;

"When you leave the house you have to get dressed, including putting on pants"
"When you fail a difficult terrain test you suffer an immobilised result, including deducting a HP"

Take otu the "When you..." portion and it's an entirely different situation as the qualifier for the statement is gone.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 23:49:33


Post by: clively


rigeld2 wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:


If I tell you that you have to get dressed, including putting on pants, that doesn't mean that putting on pants is separate to getting dressed. It's an included part of the process... I'm just mentioning it specifically to ensure that you remember to include it.


I notice that you keep leaving out the qualifier in the sentence. If you said:

When you leave the house, you have to get dressed, including putting on pants!

Do I have to include pants if I'm not leaving the house? If so, why?

No, but if you're getting dressed you do.




No, getting dressed does not necessarily mean putting on pants. As I highlighted before that act obviously might mean wearing a skirt, shorts, bathing suit, etc; any of which is perfectly valid depending upon the circumstance requiring you to "get dressed". Therefore pants was not a required article of clothing until this specific command about leaving the house forced it.

In the same vein, being immobilized does not mean losing a HP. However, because the normal rules for vehicle damage are being side stepped by the DT process, GW felt it was necessary to explicitly state that you lose a HP when a DT test is failed.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 23:53:39


Post by: puma713


rigeld2 wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:


If I tell you that you have to get dressed, including putting on pants, that doesn't mean that putting on pants is separate to getting dressed. It's an included part of the process... I'm just mentioning it specifically to ensure that you remember to include it.


I notice that you keep leaving out the qualifier in the sentence. If you said:

When you leave the house, you have to get dressed, including putting on pants!

Do I have to include pants if I'm not leaving the house? If so, why?

No, but if you're getting dressed you do.


Again, that ignores the qualifier. The point is, there are 3 ways to lose a hull point. Glancing hit, penetrating hit, or failing a DT test. If suffering an immobilised result automatically generates the loss of a hull point, then you lose two on each penetrating hit that rolls a 5. One for the pen, and one for the immobilised result.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/09 23:57:56


Post by: clively


 puma713 wrote:

Again, that ignores the qualifier. The point is, there are 3 ways to lose a hull point. Glancing hit, penetrating hit, or failing a DT test. If suffering an immobilised result automatically generates the loss of a hull point, then you lose two on each penetrating hit that rolls a 5. One for the pen, and one for the immobilised result.


Before nosferatu jumps in, there are a few more ways such as Entropic Strike. However, the core of what you are saying is true. If "immobilised" itself causes a HP loss then every single time that comes up on the vehicle damage result you have to lose 2 points. Which is clearly not the rule set.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:13:38


Post by: Tomb King


Wait... now I am lost? Why am I putting on pants again?

Here is an example:
Drop pod comes in and lands.
It is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized result so it become immobilized and loses a hull point.

See now wasn't that easy? Any questions?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:16:53


Post by: puma713


 Tomb King wrote:
Wait... now I am lost? Why am I putting on pants again?

Here is an example:
Drop pod comes in and lands.
It is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized result so it become immobilized and loses a hull point.

See now wasn't that easy? Any questions?


Yep. Did you suffer a glancing hit, penetrating hit or fail a DT test?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:17:24


Post by: liturgies of blood


Why are you taking a HP? Did it fail a DT test? Or suffer a glancing or penetrating hit?

The FAQ only adds the loss of a HP to the DT failure otherwise the example of 2 HP's lost for a pen that results in an immobilised roll on the chart is a valid part of the game mechanic. Nobody has drawn a destinction between this situation and the dp.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:19:17


Post by: rigeld2


Except it's not.

If you suffer an immobilize a HP is included.
If you roll on the pen chart, you've already suffered a HP damage and therefore the HP is included.

If you don't roll on the pen chart you must still include a HP loss.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:20:54


Post by: liturgies of blood


Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:22:31


Post by: rigeld2


 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:24:15


Post by: Grey Templar


rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Citation needed. Where does it say that if you are immobilized you MUST lose a Hull Point too?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:26:05


Post by: rigeld2


 Grey Templar wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Citation needed. Where does it say that if you are immobilized you MUST lose a Hull Point too?

The oft quoted DT errata. It states that HP loss is included with the Immobilization.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:26:45


Post by: Grey Templar


rigeld2 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Citation needed. Where does it say that if you are immobilized you MUST lose a Hull Point too?

The oft quoted DT errata. It states that HP loss is included with the Immobilization.


That only applies to DT rolls. To say it applies to anything else is making stuff up.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:28:13


Post by: rigeld2


 Grey Templar wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Citation needed. Where does it say that if you are immobilized you MUST lose a Hull Point too?

The oft quoted DT errata. It states that HP loss is included with the Immobilization.


That only applies to DT rolls. To say it applies to anything else is making stuff up.

Sigh. That's just not true. If it was part of the DT failure it would not say that it was included in the Immobilization result.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:30:36


Post by: liturgies of blood


If the DT is being used to shoehorn the loss of a HP here why is it that the PRO FAQ side aren't agreeing that the loss of HP happens again when you suffer immobilisation on the damage chart?

If the two are tied intrinsically, then you must take the second HP away. Otherwise the DT test is the only situation where the HP loss and the immobilisation result are tied and the failed DT test is causing the loss of the HP not the immobilisation.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:33:23


Post by: rigeld2


liturgies of blood wrote:If the DT is being used to shoehorn the loss of a HP here why is it that the PRO FAQ side aren't agreeing that the loss of HP happens again when you suffer immobilisation on the damage chart?

If the two are tied intrinsically, then you must take the second HP away. Otherwise the DT test is the only situation where the HP loss and the immobilisation result are tied and the failed DT test is causing the loss of the HP not the immobilisation.


rigeld2 wrote:Except it's not.

If you suffer an immobilize a HP is included.
If you roll on the pen chart, you've already suffered a HP damage and therefore the HP is included.

If you don't roll on the pen chart you must still include a HP loss.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:41:17


Post by: liturgies of blood


Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Immobilised result =/= loosing a HP, that is the previous step. The damage steps are 1 suffer a pen, 2 take a HP, 3 roll on the vehicle damage table and apply results. The suffering of an immobilised damage result is just the roll on the table not the entire process from pen to applying the result of the vehicle damage result.
An immobile damage result is what you get on the vehicle damage result.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:43:20


Post by: rigeld2


 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Immobilised result =/= loosing a HP, that is the previous step.
An immobile damage result is what you get on the vehicle damage result.

If you've suffered an immobilize result on the pen table, you've suffered a HP loss, right?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:43:48


Post by: puma713


rigeld2 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Citation needed. Where does it say that if you are immobilized you MUST lose a Hull Point too?

The oft quoted DT errata. It states that HP loss is included with the Immobilization.


Hence, why you lose 2, if that is the way you're playing it.

Rolling on the damage table is separate of suffering a penetrating hit, a glancing hit or failing a DT test. They are not tied together. You lose a hull point for one of three reasons: glancing hit, penetrating hit or failing a DT test. You don't lose a hull point simply because you rolled on the damage table, if you did, you'd lose 2 on *each* roll on the damage table after a pen. You might lose a hull point as a result of your roll on the damage table, but not simply because you rolled on the damage table.

So, if you're losing a hull point by virtue of "rolling an immobilised result", then you must, by definition, lose one for a pen, then lose one for rolling an immobilised result.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:44:37


Post by: 40k-noob


rigeld2 wrote:
40k-noob wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
The specific scenario being dealt with by the FAQ is DT, yes.

But the response given is tying the HP loss in with the damage. What the FAQ is saying is that suffering an Immobilised damage result includes losing a hull point.


No it does not, it says that the failing the Dangerous Terrain Test includes a HP loss not suffering an Immobilised damage result.

The FAQ/Erata is updating the rules for Vehicles and a failed Test results in being immobilized and the loss of an HP, not that the vehicle damage result itself includes an HP loss.

No, it says that failing a DT test causes an immobilize result (including the loss of a hull point). Meaning that the hull point loss is tied to the immobilize result.

Pleas actually read and post the FAQ before saying its not tied to the immobilize result.


So having a difference of opinion means I don't read?
And what would posting the FAQ do? It is already in this thread numerous times, and as such I have read the FAQ even more times since I have followed this thread from its beginning going back and forth reading everyone's posts and ideas.

Lets not go insinuating things that are meaningless and border on insults.

If you disagree with me then say so (which yo have said as much actually) and if you or I can convince the other then great, if not, also great.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:44:47


Post by: puma713


rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Immobilised result =/= loosing a HP, that is the previous step.
An immobile damage result is what you get on the vehicle damage result.

If you've suffered an immobilize result on the pen table, you've suffered a HP loss, right?


Unless you're a drop pod, which doesn't suffer a penetrating hit, then yes.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:44:57


Post by: rigeld2


Please stop asserting that - I've shown why that isn't true.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:46:20


Post by: insaniak


 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Because GW like hidding stealth rules changes in their FAQ responses.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:47:34


Post by: 40k-noob


For those on the -1HP side, answer me this; so then getting immobilized causes two HP to be lost if it is the result of a single shooting attack?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:47:50


Post by: puma713


rigeld2 wrote:
Please stop asserting that - I've shown why that isn't true.


No, you've shown why you believe it is not true. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is or not.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:49:42


Post by: insaniak


40k-noob wrote:
For those on the -1HP side, answer me this; so then getting immobilized causes two HP to be lost if it is the result of a single shooting attack?

Probably. I have no idea how it's supposed to work, though, just like I have no idea how we're supposed to resolve damage against battlements after GW changed that rule in the FAQ as well.

I get around the issue for the moment by just not playing with drop pods.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:49:51


Post by: liturgies of blood


 insaniak wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Because GW like hidding stealth rules changes in their FAQ responses.


Well that is hard to prove in this case. Also would you like to answer the rest of that post?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:50:02


Post by: puma713


 insaniak wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Because GW like hidding stealth rules changes in their FAQ responses.


So, you're making your opponent take 2 hull points off when they roll immobilised results from penetrating hits? Because that is what you're saying. That suffering an immoblised result is instrinsically linked to losing a hull point.

And if you're with rigeld2 in saying that it is only talking about the hull point you lost when you rolled a penetrating hit, then the hull point is no longer instrinsically linked to the result, but to the cause of the result.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:51:12


Post by: rigeld2


 puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Please stop asserting that - I've shown why that isn't true.


No, you've shown why you believe it is not true. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is or not.

So wait - You're putting words in my mouth by saying my interpretation causes 2 HPs to be lost on rolling the result, but if I explain why that's not true that's just, like, my opinion and doesn't change the "fact" that (according to you) I'm saying 2 HP are lost?

How about you address what I've said instead of strawmaning or "slippery slope"ing me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 puma713 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Because GW like hidding stealth rules changes in their FAQ responses.


So, you're making your opponent take 2 hull points off when they roll immobilised results from penetrating hits? Because that is what you're saying. That suffering an immoblised result is instrinsically linked to losing a hull point.

And if you're with rigeld2 in saying that it is only talking about the hull point you lost when you rolled a penetrating hit, then the hull point is no longer instrinsically linked to the result, but to the cause of the result.


And neither sentence of that is true. If you suffer an immobilized result on the pen table, have you suffered a HP loss?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:53:28


Post by: puma713


rigeld2 wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Please stop asserting that - I've shown why that isn't true.


No, you've shown why you believe it is not true. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is or not.

So wait - You're putting words in my mouth by saying my interpretation causes 2 HPs to be lost on rolling the result, but if I explain why that's not true


Again, you haven't explained why it's not true. I have since posted two responses to that claim which have yet to be addressed.

rigeld2 wrote:


How about you address what I've said instead of strawmaning or "slippery slope"ing me.


I have. Twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:

If you suffer an immobilized result on the pen table, have you suffered a HP loss?


In almost all cases, yes. But as you know, it is a logical fallacy to assert that if it happens in 99 cases, it will happen in the 100th case.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:55:56


Post by: liturgies of blood


rigeld2 wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Please stop asserting that - I've shown why that isn't true.


No, you've shown why you believe it is not true. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is or not.

So wait - You're putting words in my mouth by saying my interpretation causes 2 HPs to be lost on rolling the result, but if I explain why that's not true that's just, like, my opinion and doesn't change the "fact" that (according to you) I'm saying 2 HP are lost?

How about you address what I've said instead of strawmaning or "slippery slope"ing me.

I addressed it, suffering the loss of a HP and the result of damage chart are not one and the same.
For a pen you do both, for a glance you only do 1. For a DT test you do both and in the case of a drop pod(for the next two days anyway) you only count as having suffered the imobilised on the vehicle damage table.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:56:10


Post by: puma713


 puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Please stop asserting that - I've shown why that isn't true.


No, you've shown why you believe it is not true. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is or not.


To this point, I thought you were talking about something else, not the -2 HP thing.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 00:56:59


Post by: rigeld2


 puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
If you suffer an immobilized result on the pen table, have you suffered a HP loss?

In almost all cases, yes.

So the Hull Point loss is included in the Immobilized result. Just like it's included in the Shaken, Stunned, Weapon Destroyed results.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 01:00:53


Post by: liturgies of blood


rigeld2 wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
If you suffer an immobilized result on the pen table, have you suffered a HP loss?

In almost all cases, yes.

So the Hull Point loss is included in the Immobilized result. Just like it's included in the Shaken, Stunned, Weapon Destroyed results.


Nope you suffer a HP and also suffer the vehicle damage chart's result. The rulebook says "After deducting any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour." So the vehicle damage is related to the loss of the HP but only in so much as they are caused by the same thing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is part of the resolution of the pen but that is not called for anywhere in the immobilie rule.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 01:07:48


Post by: clively


 liturgies of blood wrote:


Nope you suffer a HP and also suffer the vehicle damage chart's result. The rulebook says "After deducting any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour." So the vehicle damage is related to the loss of the HP but only in so much as they are caused by the same thing.


It is part of the resolution of the pen but that is not called for anywhere in the immobilie rule.


Exactly. The HP loss occurs BEFORE the pen roll. Which essentially means that it is unhooked from any result on that table. Which means that GW absolutely had to have the "..., including..." verbiage to the FAQ about the DT tests for vehicles in order for us to not be arguing about that. So, the act of getting an immobilized result from simply landing does not mean you lost a HP. Which leads us, finally, to the fact that if a drop pod lands on the table in a normal spot without any difficulty it will not lose a HP.

The steps involved are:

1. Place your marker
2. Roll scatter
3. If scatter on impassable terrain or a model, move to a safe distance.
4. If Mishap, roll on the mishap table. Handle accordingly
5. Assuming it's still on the table: Drop Pod now counts as immobilized
6. Is DP in difficult or dangerous terrain? If yes, perform DT roll.
7. If roll failed, lose 1 HP and apply "immobilized" result. Because it is already immobilized, lose weapon.
8. Passengers disembark

Done.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 01:31:00


Post by: Rorschach9


 Tomb King wrote:
Wait... now I am lost? Why am I putting on pants again?

Here is an example:
Drop pod comes in and lands.
It is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized result so it become immobilized and loses a hull point.

See now wasn't that easy? Any questions?


Drop pod lands
It is now treated in all respects as a vehicle that HAS Suffered an immobilized result. Therefore "The vehicle cannot move for the rest of the game. It may not turn either, but it's turret can continue to rotate to select targets."
Is the Drop pod unable to move? Yes
May it still target? Yes
Is it therefore treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result? Yes

No mention of hull point loss for suffering an Immobilized result.

Do you lose a hull point as a result of suffering an immobilized result? No. Hull point loss is taken PRIOR to suffering an immobilised result (in fact, prior to even rolling on the table you have already taken a hull point loss), thus the FAQ to tell you that you must also include one with a failed DT test (which is a specific case, not a general rule).


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 01:51:57


Post by: insaniak


 puma713 wrote:

So, you're making your opponent take 2 hull points off when they roll immobilised results from penetrating hits?

No, because I don't think that was the intention. What I think the DT FAQ was supposed to show was that you lose a Hull point whenever you take damage, whether or not a hit occured.

That's just a personal opinion though. I have no idea whether they actually intended for Immobile vehicle to take a HP just for being deployed... I would love to say no, because that's clearly absurd... but 4th edition drop pods granting victory points suggest that GW have a different opinion as to just what constitutes 'absurd'...

Until they issue a ruling one way or the other, I'll only use pods against people I know well, and I'll allow opponents using them to play it however they see fit, because that saves arguments at the table.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 01:53:39


Post by: Grey Templar


rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Immobilised result =/= loosing a HP, that is the previous step.
An immobile damage result is what you get on the vehicle damage result.

If you've suffered an immobilize result on the pen table, you've suffered a HP loss, right?


because you took a Pen, not because you were immobilized.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 12:31:53


Post by: KingCracker


Correct. This is why Im not understanding the argument for HP loss. You suffer the HP loss FROM THE PEN THEN you roll on the VDC and thats how you suffer the immobile result. Read the actual rulebook gents, its pretty damn clear where the HP loss is tied too.

Saying you lose HP because of the dangerous terrain test in the FAQ, means you lose HP because a drop pod is immobile is just ludicrous


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 12:43:03


Post by: MarkyMark


But but but from the DT FAQ it says we get immoblized and a hull point gone.....

Agree with the above, and Gary Templar, as I said before the HP isnt lost as there is no roll for it simply put. The DT faq is from well you guessed it dangerous terrain trying to link that to a immobile rule on drop pods to stretching it a little too much.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 13:12:44


Post by: nosferatu1001


King - it isnt ludicrous, it is just reading the actual text exactly

INCLUDED is a strong phrase - it specifically states that an Immobilised result INCLUDES as in HAS WITH IT, IS ACCOMPANIED BY IN ALL CASES, the loss of HP

Youc annot argue against that phrase, as that is literal English comprehension.

This means that, if you take an immobilised result you SHOULD take HP loss as well - that is what "Includes" means

The non- -1HP side doesnt have a RAW argumetn against this - just one based on emotion

Puma - actually its the basis of inductive logic (1, ...,, K, K+1) so not a fallacy, just not absolute proof


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 13:36:04


Post by: Rorschach9


nosferatu1001 wrote:
King - it isnt ludicrous, it is just reading the actual text exactly

INCLUDED is a strong phrase - it specifically states that an Immobilised result INCLUDES as in HAS WITH IT, IS ACCOMPANIED BY IN ALL CASES, the loss of HP

Youc annot argue against that phrase, as that is literal English comprehension.

This means that, if you take an immobilised result you SHOULD take HP loss as well - that is what "Includes" means

The non- -1HP side doesnt have a RAW argumetn against this - just one based on emotion


Literal English comprehension requires the inclusion of the qualifier for the statement however. "“A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”."

The qualifier is "A vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test", which is not not a generic "A vehicle that suffers any immobilised result includes the lose of one hull point".
This is not emotion. This is literal English comprehension.

And once again : A drop pod becomes immobilised and is treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result.
HOW do you treat a vehicle that HAS SUFFERED an immobilised result? "The vehicle cannot move for the rest of the game. It may not turn either, but it's turret can continue to rotate to select targets."
You don't remove a hull point because of the immoblised result on the chart. That comes PRIOR to the immobilised result.
The DT FAQ entry is a qualifier. It adds the loss of a HP due to a failed DT roll. It does not change any rules, it merely adds to a specific circumstance.
If it were to remove a HP for ANY immobilised result then the HP loss would have to be doubled when you roll that specific result on the Pen damage table, as you are trying to tie the loss of the HP to any and all immobilised results. The rules do NOT say that.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 13:44:23


Post by: FenixZero


 insaniak wrote:
 puma713 wrote:

So, you're making your opponent take 2 hull points off when they roll immobilised results from penetrating hits?

No, because I don't think that was the intention. What I think the DT FAQ was supposed to show was that you lose a Hull point whenever you take damage, whether or not a hit occured.

That's just a personal opinion though. I have no idea whether they actually intended for Immobile vehicle to take a HP just for being deployed... I would love to say no, because that's clearly absurd... but 4th edition drop pods granting victory points suggest that GW have a different opinion as to just what constitutes 'absurd'...

Until they issue a ruling one way or the other, I'll only use pods against people I know well, and I'll allow opponents using them to play it however they see fit, because that saves arguments at the table.

But again, in most cases, the vehicles that fail DT tests are ones that have motive power. The HP loss from the failed DT is to represent something that immobilizes the vehicle, like throwing a track or something. But with a drop pad, it is *already* immobile, no damage occurred to make it immobile, that is its natural state, and the way it was designed, which is the reason it can't be repaired.

For a drop pod, a fail DT is something like a rock (or something similar) in the landing zone that actually damages the pod.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 14:47:51


Post by: beigeknight


nosferatu1001 wrote:
King - it isnt ludicrous, it is just reading the actual text exactly

INCLUDED is a strong phrase - it specifically states that an Immobilised result INCLUDES as in HAS WITH IT, IS ACCOMPANIED BY IN ALL CASES, the loss of HP

Youc annot argue against that phrase, as that is literal English comprehension.

This means that, if you take an immobilised result you SHOULD take HP loss as well - that is what "Includes" means

The non- -1HP side doesnt have a RAW argumetn against this - just one based on emotion

Puma - actually its the basis of inductive logic (1, ...,, K, K+1) so not a fallacy, just not absolute proof


-1 HP should be included....for failing a DT test.

just one based on emotion


This seems like it's trying to bait a heated argument .


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 14:53:44


Post by: liturgies of blood


nosferatu1001 wrote:

INCLUDED is a strong phrase - it specifically states that an Immobilised result INCLUDES as in HAS WITH IT, IS ACCOMPANIED BY IN ALL CASES, the loss of HP

Youc annot argue against that phrase, as that is literal English comprehension.
No it doesn't it says that a failed Dt test includes the loss of a HP with the immobilised result. Not that they are intrinsically tied together.

The non- -1HP side doesnt have a RAW argumetn against this - just one based on emotion
Nope just different interpretation of the words on the page. You've RAI as RAW. The problem when you try and use "precedent" to expand a question beyond what it says then you have no longer got RAW. Certain faq questions add more to the base rules beyond their specific question but not this.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 15:23:03


Post by: alex567


I read the faq to read, "the unit sufferes an Immobilised result including losing 1 hull point" as in, in addition to losing 1 hull point the vehicle is Immobilised.

My viewpoint.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 16:13:03


Post by: Kangodo


 insaniak wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Because GW like hidding stealth rules changes in their FAQ responses.


That's because their FAQ sucks
It should have said that it's immobilized AND loses a hullpoint instead of the word "including".

My rulebook clearly states:
Glancing hit: 1 effect
> Hullpoint loss.

Penetrating hit: 2 effects
> Hullpoint loss.
> Roll on the Vehicle Damage Table.

It might be me, but with GW's record of typo's and rule-paradoxes I lost faith in the FAQ's capability to fix rule-errors.
Many times, they create more problems than they solve.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 17:16:02


Post by: Mantel


Do FW rules count in this? They added a new vehicle type, the immobile vehicle in their 6th edition update - http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf

There's a direct relation to this, the Lucius droppod.

New Vehicle Type: Immobile Vehicle. An Immobile Vehicle cannot move under any circumstances after deployment. Any special rules which force it to move will instead cause the vehicle to take a single Glancing hit. If an Immobile Vehicle sustains a Vehicle Immobilised damage result then it loses an additional Hull Point instead.

So the standard droppod suffers a -1hp when deployed being knocked down to two HP and this one doesn't? Their previous update had the exact same rule word-for-word for the immobile special rule here - http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA2update28AUG.pdf but looks to have been replaced with the Immobile Vehicle rule.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 17:19:46


Post by: clively


Mantel wrote:
Do FW rules count in this?

Unfortunately no. There are certainly items in FW books where it's obvious they were trying to clear up rule issues in the main game. However, those don't apply for this discussion in YMDC.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 17:42:58


Post by: liturgies of blood


Yes unfortunately FW rules stray somewhere between heresy, magic and experimental.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 19:30:59


Post by: Tomb King


clively wrote:
Mantel wrote:
Do FW rules count in this?

Unfortunately no. There are certainly items in FW books where it's obvious they were trying to clear up rule issues in the main game. However, those don't apply for this discussion in YMDC.


Woh! Nothing that leads people to accept a hp is lost is allowed here. Get that out of here.

Every route that ends with a vehicle becoming immobilized also has that vehicle losing a hp. If you don't wanna follow the obvious supports of why this happens that are listed in the faq, codex, and/or rulebook, then just take out a pen scribble a few new rules in the book and play it that way. As long as your opponents agree to that then happy day.

Or just dont take drop pods until is concrete which way to go. If something is on the line like this I usually lean towards the negative one as not to take advantage of poorly worded situations.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 19:36:48


Post by: tgf


The problem exists with the phrasing of the immbile rule under drop pods, the change to 6th edition with haul points and the people that play this game. Just find players that aren't WAAC TFG s and play with them till immobile is FAQed. You could always take a dump in their model case too when they aren't looking, I don't believe there are any rules against that.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 19:57:10


Post by: Tye_Informer


Rorschach9 wrote:

Literal English comprehension requires the inclusion of the qualifier for the statement however. "“A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”."



If the text read "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table and loses one Hull Point” then that would mean a failed DT test causes 2 things, immobilized result AND loss of a HP. The way it is actually written means failing a DT test causes 1 thing, immobilized result, that result includes losing a HP.

However, all the argument about this is immaterial, it is simply another example of an immobilized vehicle. We aren't saying a Drop Pod always gets immobilized by a failed DT test or a shooting attack or a melee attack or any kind of hit. What we are saying is it is "treated" like it has an immobilized result.

Can anyone show us a vehicle that has an immobilized result, but has not lost a HP? If so, then treat the drop pod like that and don't take the HP hit. That would satisfy me.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 20:10:09


Post by: insaniak


FenixZero wrote:
But again, in most cases, the vehicles that fail DT tests are ones that have motive power. The HP loss from the failed DT is to represent something that immobilizes the vehicle, like throwing a track or something. But with a drop pad, it is *already* immobile, no damage occurred to make it immobile, that is its natural state, and the way it was designed, which is the reason it can't be repaired.

And that's been the case for as long as drop pods have been in the game... and yet GW still awarded victory points for 'damaging' the pod just for it being deployed onto the table.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 21:05:56


Post by: Mantel


I'd like to see what the Dark Angels codex has to say on this in the next few days although chances are it's a copy/paste job for a standard drop pod entry and we'll have to wait for an FAQ for a proper answer. I've looked through a few codex now and outside of FW units the immobile vehicle that is the drop pod is fairly unique.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 21:22:23


Post by: 40k-noob


Mantel wrote:
I'd like to see what the Dark Angels codex has to say on this in the next few days although chances are it's a copy/paste job for a standard drop pod entry and we'll have to wait for an FAQ for a proper answer. I've looked through a few codex now and outside of FW units the immobile vehicle that is the drop pod is fairly unique.


it is the exact same Immobilerule as the current SM codex. I saw the book last nite


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 21:58:13


Post by: clively


Tye_Informer wrote:

Can anyone show us a vehicle that has an immobilized result, but has not lost a HP? If so, then treat the drop pod like that and don't take the HP hit. That would satisfy me.


There is no other unit in the standard game of 40k that begins by being immobilized. The drop pod is unique in that regard and that alone is probably why the rule language is jacked.

Looking a bit further into FW, there are certainly artillery and turret emplacements which have the "Immobile" rule. There is also the dreadclaw; but it's rules are a bit confusing. They start off by saying when the dreadclaw arrives from reserves, it is deployed using the Drop Pod rules. But then it talks about coming in like an aircraft then moving 36" on the turn *after* it's arrival; so obviously it isn't deployed using the actual drop pod rules but some variation of them. With the specific problem that if it deploys using the Drop Pod rules then it should be immobilized upon first coming in...

Either way none of that matters as it's FW.

I still believe the wording on the Drop Pod rules are such that HP isn't lost on arrival. I also believe that a rule about a Dangerous Terrain test has no bearing on an action that does not involve dangerous terrain. However, I do acknowledge Insaniak's position that prior versions allowed VP to be scored off of a drop pod simply because they were on the table which does lend some credence to the possibility that GW intended for the pods to lose a HP upon arrival.

As there is enough wiggle on both sides, just discuss it before hand or roll for it when it comes up.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 22:34:40


Post by: puma713


When a rule is muddy, I usually endeavor to take the least advantageous route for myself. That being said, I don't agree with the HP loss not only because I don't think that is RAW or RAI, but because I am not going to try to explain to my opponent why his drop pod just suffered a hull point loss because of an ambiguous FAQ interpretation that has nothing to do with drop pods.




Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/10 22:52:27


Post by: rigeld2


alex567 wrote:
I read the faq to read, "the unit sufferes an Immobilised result including losing 1 hull point" as in, in addition to losing 1 hull point the vehicle is Immobilised.

My viewpoint.

The rest of us understand the difference between "in addition" and "including".


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 00:27:01


Post by: liturgies of blood


rigeld2 wrote:
alex567 wrote:
I read the faq to read, "the unit sufferes an Immobilised result including losing 1 hull point" as in, in addition to losing 1 hull point the vehicle is Immobilised.

My viewpoint.

The rest of us understand the difference between "in addition" and "including".

And some of us understand specific verses general.

When I tell someone who lost a bet to take off their clothes, including their underwear.

That doesn't mean that every time someone takes their clothes off they must take off their underwear.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 00:47:20


Post by: rigeld2


Actually, that's exactly what it means. We know that because of the definitions of "including" vs "in addition".


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 07:27:16


Post by: nosferatu1001


Rorschash - that isnt a qualifier to the "including" portion. It strictly is acting as a reminder that HP loss is part of an immobilised damage result. If you disagree please show where these different immobilised results are defined.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 08:48:59


Post by: MarkyMark


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rorschash - that isnt a qualifier to the "including" portion. It strictly is acting as a reminder that HP loss is part of an immobilised damage result. If you disagree please show where these different immobilised results are defined.


Its not an immobilised result, the FAQ states if for DT failed test, it is in relation to DT only. People are assuming the link between link between immobilised and hull point loss based on the DT failed test FAQ and the fact the other immobilised result earned by rolling on the table, I understand what you mean but it isnt clear hence why they are assuming.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 10:37:17


Post by: nosferatu1001


No, it IS an immobilised result - it states that with no ambiguity. It states that an immobilised result INCLUDES a hull point loss

"As a result of a failed DT test" is not a qualifier in the scope "immobilised result", unless you are statring there is more than one type of immobilised result. If you are stating that, prove it, otherwise they have stated PLAINLY that an immobilsied result MUST include a HP loss. If you apply an immobilised result without including a HP loss, you have not followed this rule.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 12:09:47


Post by: Kangodo


nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it IS an immobilised result - it states that with no ambiguity. It states that an immobilised result INCLUDES a hull point loss

"As a result of a failed DT test" is not a qualifier in the scope "immobilised result", unless you are statring there is more than one type of immobilised result. If you are stating that, prove it, otherwise they have stated PLAINLY that an immobilsied result MUST include a HP loss. If you apply an immobilised result without including a HP loss, you have not followed this rule.


I am sorry, but it does not state that an immobilised result includes a hullpoint loss.
It states that "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point."

Nowhere in the rules does it say that "Immobilised results include a hullpoint loss!".
Otherwise a penetrate followed by an immobilise would make the target lose TWO hullpoints. That's because the BRB clearly says that you lose an hullpoint ánd roll on the vehicle damage table.

The Vehicle Damage Table clearly says what it means for a vehicle to have suffered an immobilize result and that does not include losing a hullpoint (unless it was already immobilized).


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 12:13:33


Post by: insaniak


Kangodo wrote:
[Nowhere in the rules does it say that "Immobilised results include a hullpoint loss!".
So, 'including losing a hull point' doesn't actually mean including losing a hull point...?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 12:25:04


Post by: Kangodo


 insaniak wrote:
So, 'including losing a hull point' doesn't actually mean including losing a hull point...?

It does not mean that an immobilized result always includes a loss of Hullpoint.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 12:26:13


Post by: rigeld2


Kangodo wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
So, 'including losing a hull point' doesn't actually mean including losing a hull point...?

It does not mean that an immobilized result always includes a loss of Hullpoint.

Interesting.

So we know that the Immobilize result referenced in the DT errata includes a hull point loss.
Can you show me where this result is defined?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 12:35:33


Post by: Kangodo


rigeld2 wrote:
Interesting.

So we know that the Immobilize result referenced in the DT errata includes a hull point loss.
Can you show me where this result is defined?


I'll quote it for you

5. Immobilized.
The vehicle has taken a hit that has crippled a wheel, track, grav plate, jet or leg.
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 81) instead remove remove an additional Hull Point.


Nowhere does this rule say that you lose a Hull Point for being Immobilized.

Penetrating Hits
If a penetrating hit was scored, the vehicle not only loses 1 Hull Point, but also suffers additional damage.
After deducting any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour.
Apply any appropriate modifiers (they are all cumulative) and look up the result using the Vehicle Damage table on the left.
You must roll on the Vehicle Damage table even if the vehicle loses sufficient Hull Points to be Wrecked, as there is still a chance that it Explodes!



I mean, I hardly play vehicles and couldn't care.
But if people want Drop Pods to suffer a Hull Point, that means an Immobilized vehicle would suffer 3 Hull Points, whereas a normal Vehicle would get 2.
1. Because of the penetrate.
2. Because apparently it is included with Immobilized (REALLY?)
3. Because it was already Immobilized.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 12:43:31


Post by: rigeld2


No, that can't be the result the DT errata is talking about - because you're saying it doesn't include HP loss. The errata requires it to.

Therefore either
A) all immobs suffer HP loss
B) there's another immob result specific for DT that no one can find a definition for.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 12:47:59


Post by: MarkyMark


Sorry how many immobilised results are there? only one I know of on the vehicle damage chart, care to quote where the other ones are?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 12:50:25


Post by: Kangodo


rigeld2 wrote:
No, that can't be the result the DT errata is talking about - because you're saying it doesn't include HP loss. The errata requires it to.

Therefore either
A) all immobs suffer HP loss
B) there's another immob result specific for DT that no one can find a definition for.

Or C) The FAQ is there to emphasise that the Immob-result does not overwrite the losing Hull Point from the failed test and you will still lose that HP.

Or even better: D) They are just terrible at rule-writing.
Source - The GW-website:
The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.
Since this isn't a grey area, the FAQ should not be used.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 13:09:49


Post by: rigeld2


MarkyMark wrote:
Sorry how many immobilised results are there? only one I know of on the vehicle damage chart, care to quote where the other ones are?

That's my point. Since there's only one and the Errata says it must include a hull point loss...


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 13:09:52


Post by: Mantel


rigeld2 wrote:
No, that can't be the result the DT errata is talking about - because you're saying it doesn't include HP loss. The errata requires it to.

Therefore either
A) all immobs suffer HP loss
B) there's another immob result specific for DT that no one can find a definition for.


What do you mean? You roll for a DT test, you fail, your immobilized which in this specific case includes a hull point loss. Other cases of immobilisation do not include a hull point loss but follow on from a hull point loss, a penetrating hit does not always include an immobilisation but has a specific stipulation that you must roll on the damage result table which could result in immobilisation. That does not mean that all immobilisation must include a hull point loss unless you can find somewhere in the BRB that shows "all immobilised results include a hull point loss" and don't say "'including losing a hull point" without "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test", it's just a statement out of context then.

If you roll with immobilisation includes a hull point loss then you'll have to roll with A) all immobs suffer HP loss, otherwise it's just like saying "immobilisation includes a hull point loss except when the hull point loss comes before hand." A penetrating hit comes with a hull point loss and that's done at a separate stage to the damage results roll.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 13:11:26


Post by: rigeld2


Kangodo wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
No, that can't be the result the DT errata is talking about - because you're saying it doesn't include HP loss. The errata requires it to.

Therefore either
A) all immobs suffer HP loss
B) there's another immob result specific for DT that no one can find a definition for.

Or C) The FAQ is there to emphasise that the Immob-result does not overwrite the losing Hull Point from the failed test and you will still lose that HP.

You mean errata of course. And isn't that the point that you're disagreeing with?

Or even better: D) They are just terrible at rule-writing.
Source - The GW-website:
The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.
Since this isn't a grey area, the FAQ should not be used.

Bzzzt. Read the tenets. FAQs and errata are perfectly valid official sources. And saying this isnt a grey area after 8 pages is amusing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mantel wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
No, that can't be the result the DT errata is talking about - because you're saying it doesn't include HP loss. The errata requires it to.

Therefore either
A) all immobs suffer HP loss
B) there's another immob result specific for DT that no one can find a definition for.


What do you mean? You roll for a DT test, you fail, your immobilized which in this specific case includes a hull point loss. Other cases of immobilisation do not include a hull point loss but follow on from a hull point loss, a penetrating hit does not always include an immobilisation but has a specific stipulation that you must roll on the damage result table which could result in immobilisation. That does not mean that all immobilisation must include a hull point loss unless you can find somewhere in the BRB that shows "all immobilised results include a hull point loss" and don't say "'including losing a hull point" without "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test", it's just a statement out of context then.

If you roll with immobilisation includes a hull point loss then you'll have to roll with A) all immobs suffer HP loss, otherwise it's just like saying "immobilisation includes a hull point loss except when the hull point loss comes before hand." A penetrating hit comes with a hull point loss and that's done at a separate stage to the damage results roll.

I've already explained why your second paragraph is false.

And it's not a statement out of context. Unless you can prove that the Immobilize from a DT test is somehow different from the result on the table, they're identical. And if one includes something, the other must as well (since they're identical).


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 13:15:03


Post by: MarkyMark


rigeld2 wrote:
MarkyMark wrote:
Sorry how many immobilised results are there? only one I know of on the vehicle damage chart, care to quote where the other ones are?

That's my point. Since there's only one and the Errata says it must include a hull point loss...


Only in regards to failing a DT, which is not the only way to be immobilised.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 14:13:22


Post by: nosferatu1001


MarkyMark wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
MarkyMark wrote:
Sorry how many immobilised results are there? only one I know of on the vehicle damage chart, care to quote where the other ones are?

That's my point. Since there's only one and the Errata says it must include a hull point loss...


Only in regards to failing a DT, which is not the only way to be immobilised.

Which isnt what was asked. We asked, 4 or more times now, to show us where these two (or more) types of immobilised result are. Not the "HOW" but the result of being immobilised.

You are told that an immobilised result includes a hull point loss (ignoring those who say it doesnt, this is basic English they are ignoring)

Now, either this includes ALL immobilised results - because there is only ONE immobilised result defined in the BRB, they must all be the same, OR there is more than one immobilised result that it is possible to receive

THe only way to claim that you do not lose a hull point is to assert that there is more than one "immobilised result" available. If you are stating that, you MUST provide proof of such. As you are unable to do so - and we cannopt prove a negative, so really you MUST provide positve proof that this thing exists - then there is only ONE immobilised result

And, we know from the FAQ that an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point as a part of the result (effect) of being immobilised

Dont ignore the word "including", as it is very, very powerful. It means that an imobilised result contains / is acoompanied by / etc a hullpoint being lost, every single time.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 14:17:24


Post by: Kangodo


rigeld2 wrote:
You mean errata of course. And isn't that the point that you're disagreeing with?

My point is that landing a Drop Pod will not cause a Hull Point loss since an Immobilized result does not make you lose a Hull Point.

rigeld2 wrote:
And it's not a statement out of context. Unless you can prove that the Immobilize from a DT test is somehow different from the result on the table, they're identical. And if one includes something, the other must as well (since they're identical).


"A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point."
Unless people quoted it wrong, that is the errata.
Yes, the "including losing one HP" could reference to the Immobilized result.
But that would contradict many other rules and result into what I said before: Pen + Immobilized = 2 HP loss.

It can also apply to failing the DT-test, which makes more sense.
Non-Vehicles that fail a DT-test, suffer a wound.
The BRB says that Vehicles get Immobilized.
So people were asking: "Doesn't the vehicle get a wound? (or in their case a HP-loss)"
And that's why we got the errata to say that failing a DT-test gives vehicles a HP-loss.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which isnt what was asked. We asked, 4 or more times now, to show us where these two (or more) types of immobilised result are. Not the "HOW" but the result of being immobilised.

There is only one type of Immobilized, correct.
And the description of that is stated within the Vehicle Damage-table.
It's where the Index sends us to if we want to know what it does.

You are told that an immobilised result includes a hull point loss (ignoring those who say it doesnt, this is basic English they are ignoring)

That's hardly constructive: "People who disagree are bad at English!"

And, we know from the FAQ that an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point as a part of the result (effect) of being immobilised

I disagree and say that the sentence says that "failing a Dangerous Terrain test" includes the loss of a Hull Point.

PS. I make a post. You quote me.
I quote you and it shows my original quote too. Is there an option to turn that off by default? It's annoying.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 14:22:00


Post by: Mantel


rigeld2 wrote:
I've already explained why your second paragraph is false.
Do you mean
rigeld2 wrote:If you roll on the pen chart, you've already suffered a HP damage and therefore the HP is included.
? The damage results table is additional damage, it doesn't include any HP loss, it is in addition to the penetrating hit which causes the HP loss. The HP loss isn't included in the damage result but rather the other way around. The damage result is included with the penetrating hit and the penetrating hit is the sole cause of the HP loss not the damage table result. Two separate results from the initial action being grouped under one action, the penetrating hit.

rigeld2 wrote:
And it's not a statement out of context. Unless you can prove that the Immobilize from a DT test is somehow different from the result on the table, they're identical. And if one includes something, the other must as well (since they're identical).

It is taken out of context, the FAQ is fairly clear that it's specific to DT tests, why are you dropping that part out each time? It seems fairly important. In the instance of "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test" immobilisation includes the loss of HP. They don't make any changes to the immobilisation result to include this HP loss outside of this DT test, nor do they change the order in which damage is assigned with a penetrating hit, HP loss first then additional damage from the damage chart. It is simply an additional danger to taking a shortcut through, or landing on, DT.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 14:27:38


Post by: Darkagent


A Drop Pod that comes onto the table is not immobilized already and so the the immobilized result does not stack, it states in the rule book that a vehicle only losses a HP if the vehicle is already immobilized and rolls a 5 on the chart.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 14:51:07


Post by: nosferatu1001


Kangodo - then you are not parsing the sentence correctly. "Including ..." is owned by the "immobilised result" subject. Basic parsing there.

Ther is only one result, and we know that the result includes the loss of a hull point. So your argument that it doesnt include a hull point loss is just "i disagree", with no argument left.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 15:03:47


Post by: Kangodo


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kangodo - then you are not parsing the sentence correctly. "Including ..." is owned by the "immobilised result" subject. Basic parsing there.

Ther is only one result, and we know that the result includes the loss of a hull point. So your argument that it doesnt include a hull point loss is just "i disagree", with no argument left.
No, my argument is that the loss of Hull Point is included in failing the Dangerous Terrain-test, not in the suffering of an Immobilized result.
What you keep on saying is: "No, it's included in the Immob-result. Basic English, learn it!"
And I can assure you that both my English and parsing is perfectly fine.

But let me ask you one question:
I have a Land Raider.
Someone fires a Lascannon (STR9 - AP2).
He hits. He penetrates.
He rolls a 4, adds 1 and my Land Raider is Immobilized!

How many Hull Points does my Land Raider lose?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 15:11:21


Post by: Mantel


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kangodo - then you are not parsing the sentence correctly. "Including ..." is owned by the "immobilised result" subject. Basic parsing there.

Ther is only one result, and we know that the result includes the loss of a hull point. So your argument that it doesnt include a hull point loss is just "i disagree", with no argument left.


If we take that phrase in isolation you're correct but "suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point” is owned by "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test" This limits the second half of the statement to a particular unit, a vehicle, and further refines it to a particular scenario, a DT test.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 15:40:46


Post by: nosferatu1001


So you are saying that the immobilised result that is the result of a failed DT test is a DIFFERENT immobilised result to that of another cause?

Prove there are 2 different immobilised results. Page and para.

(hint - you are making the same argument as we have no w asked fore proof of 5 times previously, so please do so)

Kangodo - go back about 2 pages, already answered that. You have yet to actually prove your case, that the ownership of "including..." is NOT the immobilised result. Your parsing is entirely incorrect if you say the owner is the DT failure. Just flat out wrong.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 15:49:27


Post by: Kangodo


nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you are saying that the immobilised result that is the result of a failed DT test is a DIFFERENT immobilised result to that of another cause?

Prove there are 2 different immobilised results. Page and para.

(hint - you are making the same argument as we have no w asked fore proof of 5 times previously, so please do so)


No, there is only ONE type of Immobilized result: The one described on the Vehicle Damage-table and this result does not have a loss of Hull Point.
That table is exactly where the proof is, the Vehicle Damage-table tells you exactly what an Immobilized-result means and that does not include the loss of Hull Point.
So you want proof? Open the rulebook, go to index, find Vehicle Damage-table and see that it does not include a HP-loss.

"But the sentence in the errata is saying INCLUDING a loss of Hull Point."
Yes, it does.
And since I have already proven it's not included in the Immobilized-result (See the VD-table) it must mean it's included in the DT-test.

Kangodo - go back about 2 pages, already answered that. You have yet to actually prove your case, that the ownership of "including..." is NOT the immobilised result. Your parsing is entirely incorrect if you say the owner is the DT failure. Just flat out wrong.

You haven't answered that question in this thread.
So let's try again: A simple numbers-question that should be answered by 1, 2 or 3.
How many Hull Points does my Land Raider lose if it gets hit by a Lascannon that results into a penetrate followed by "Immobilized" on the Vehicle Damage-table?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 16:04:10


Post by: Mantel


nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you are saying that the immobilised result that is the result of a failed DT test is a DIFFERENT immobilised result to that of another cause?

Prove there are 2 different immobilised results. Page and para.

(hint - you are making the same argument as we have no w asked fore proof of 5 times previously, so please do so)

Kangodo - go back about 2 pages, already answered that. You have yet to actually prove your case, that the ownership of "including..." is NOT the immobilised result. Your parsing is entirely incorrect if you say the owner is the DT failure. Just flat out wrong.


You are making the claim that there is a separate immobilised result, you are holding up a strawman which is issuing this statement and asking us to prove something that cannot be proved. Immobilised is immobilised and in the case of a DT test it includes a HP loss. In the case of one specific scenario, which is specifically cited in the sentence, a failed DT test, the immobilised result includes a HP loss. The full statement is not a game-wide one, it applies to one specific test that happens at one specific time, the DT test. If you insist that "Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point" is a statement all on it's own please explain why "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test" needs to be discarded and not considered at all.

"including losing one Hull Point" IS owned by immobilised, the word immobilised not the rule, if you expand the sentence to it's full length you'll find that immobilised is owned by the vehicle that has failed the DT test.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 16:13:55


Post by: nosferatu1001


Mantel - meaning that the DT-immobilsed result is a special result, separate to the normal immobilised result

Why can it be discarded? Because it does not act as a qualifier to the following sentence fragment, unless you are correct and it has created a special, unique immobilised result.

SO which is it? There is a special, unique immobilised result, or there is just the one?

Kangodo - wrong, I have answered the multiple HP question before. Not your specific one, as it is irrelevant, but in general. Found any proof that "including..." is owned by the DT test failure yet? English says no, but you must have something to back up your assertion?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 16:27:26


Post by: Kangodo


nosferatu1001 wrote:
SO which is it? There is a special, unique immobilised result, or there is just the one?
There is one unique immobilized result, nothing else.
Kangodo - wrong, I have answered the multiple HP question before. Not your specific one, as it is irrelevant, but in general. Found any proof that "including..." is owned by the DT test failure yet? English says no, but you must have something to back up your assertion?
Why the hell is it irrelevant?
It has everything to do with this discussion.
So are you going to answer it or will you continue to troll everyone?
It's ONE simple question: How much HP will be Land Raider lose in that scenario? One, two, three or more?

And no, English does not say anything like that.
I've also given you the proof, but I will do it again because I am actually trying to have a discussion instead of annoying people.

A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point.
We have a bold, an underlined and italicized part!
The question is: What part does the italicized part refer to?
underlined: The Vehicle Damage-table had no errata and does not mention a HP-loss anywhere.
bold: This piece is about Dangerous Terrain (which was errata'd with the line we are talking about).

The only logical conclusion would be that the loss of HP directly refers to losing a DT-test.

And now answer the question, please..


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 16:37:49


Post by: MarkyMark


nosferatu1001 wrote:
MarkyMark wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
MarkyMark wrote:
Sorry how many immobilised results are there? only one I know of on the vehicle damage chart, care to quote where the other ones are?

That's my point. Since there's only one and the Errata says it must include a hull point loss...


Only in regards to failing a DT, which is not the only way to be immobilised.

Which isnt what was asked. We asked, 4 or more times now, to show us where these two (or more) types of immobilised result are. Not the "HOW" but the result of being immobilised.

You are told that an immobilised result includes a hull point loss (ignoring those who say it doesnt, this is basic English they are ignoring)

Now, either this includes ALL immobilised results - because there is only ONE immobilised result defined in the BRB, they must all be the same, OR there is more than one immobilised result that it is possible to receive

THe only way to claim that you do not lose a hull point is to assert that there is more than one "immobilised result" available. If you are stating that, you MUST provide proof of such. As you are unable to do so - and we cannopt prove a negative, so really you MUST provide positve proof that this thing exists - then there is only ONE immobilised result

And, we know from the FAQ that an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point as a part of the result (effect) of being immobilised

Dont ignore the word "including", as it is very, very powerful. It means that an imobilised result contains / is acoompanied by / etc a hullpoint being lost, every single time.


It says for DT tests, doesnt mention anything else. There is one immobilised result, its on the table as has been said before the only way to get a immobilised result and hull point loss is from failing a Dangerous test and have a pen and score 5 on the table.

Just because the immobilised result includes a hull point for failing DT it does not mean anything else immobilised MUST have a hull point loss, which is what you are doing.

The immobilised result is on the vehicle damage chart, look it up, no mention of hull points other to say a vehicle already immobilised which gets immobilised again takes another HP off.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 16:42:42


Post by: Rorschach9


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Mantel - meaning that the DT-immobilsed result is a special result, separate to the normal immobilised result

Why can it be discarded? Because it does not act as a qualifier to the following sentence fragment, unless you are correct and it has created a special, unique immobilised result.

SO which is it? There is a special, unique immobilised result, or there is just the one?


It cannot be discarded. By removing the portion about failing a DT test you are changing the CONTEXT of the statement and therefore assuming it applies to everything, rather than the context in which it is stated.
"When a vehicle fails a DT test, it suffers an immobilised result as detailed on the vehicle damage chart including the loss of a hull point" is not the same as "A vehicle that suffers an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point". You cannot separate sentence in order to create a new context and claim that is RAW, as it's not written that way.

NOBODY is asserting there is some special, unique immobilised result.

There is immobilised, as outlined in the BRB. This RESULT does not include the loss of a HP. How you reach that result, in the case of a Pen or a failed DT test, includes the loss of a hull point.

But then again, this entire thread is now going in circles with both sides of the fence stating, essentially, "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it or prove me wrong".


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 16:50:02


Post by: MarkyMark


So immobile states

Treat vehicle same as any other vehicles suffered immobilised result.

I have a land raider which is immobilised (probably on my own aegis done that before!!), now it is down to 1 hull point. Do I treat the drop pod as the same as the land raider? cannot move pivot etc, oh its lost 3 hull points, drop pod is a wreck now ?.

Or just treat it as not being able to move pivot etc just like the immobilsed result tells us.

This is my point of view, will leave this thread at that, thanks.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 16:53:15


Post by: Mantel


nosferatu1001 wrote:Mantel - meaning that the DT-immobilsed result is a special result, separate to the normal immobilised result

Why can it be discarded? Because it does not act as a qualifier to the following sentence fragment, unless you are correct and it has created a special, unique immobilised result.

SO which is it? There is a special, unique immobilised result, or there is just the one?

I didn't really want to discard the start of the sentence, it really changes the context of the whole statement if you start dropping fragments of it but you must be right, it has created a new result. Thanks for clearing that one up, finally an answer is found!

And if your looking for this unique DT-immobilised result, you've just found it! Thanks for that.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 17:01:03


Post by: Tomb King


MarkyMark wrote:
So immobile states

Treat vehicle same as any other vehicles suffered immobilised result.

I have a land raider which is immobilised (probably on my own aegis done that before!!), now it is down to 1 hull point. Do I treat the drop pod as the same as the land raider? cannot move pivot etc, oh its lost 3 hull points, drop pod is a wreck now ?.

Or just treat it as not being able to move pivot etc just like the immobilsed result tells us.

This is my point of view, will leave this thread at that, thanks.


No it lost 1hp when it failed that DT test. Why 3? Immobile only states that it is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered that result. Any route that is taken to get a vehicle to be immobilized involves losing a hp. So to be the same in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result you would only need to lose one hp. Vehicles only ever losing 2 HP from that result if they previously suffered that result. IE if your drop pod comes in and fails a DT it is wrecked! The passengers can still disembark.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 17:07:39


Post by: liturgies of blood


You guys are still putting the horse before the cart. This is a special rule, so the general way a vehicle is immobilised requires the loss of a hull point, in this specific case you don't apply other damage because you are not told to.

You don't say "it doesn't say it can't loose a HP" just because a general principle calls for it in most cases because of other factors such as a pen or a failed DT result. Wounds usually require a "to wound" roll but sometimes you just suffer a wound. This is a case where a vehicle is just immobilised.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 17:55:14


Post by: nosferatu1001


Kangodo - again, I answered the general case. Not your specific case - which is irrelevant because I answered the general case

Your proof isnt actually proof. It iis just a set of assertions without any backing, that happens to ignore grammatical construction in a sentence.

For the rest? You are still all ignoring "including", and pretending it means something else.

GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 18:06:46


Post by: Kangodo


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kangodo - again, I answered the general case. Not your specific case - which is irrelevant because I answered the general case

Your proof isnt actually proof. It iis just a set of assertions without any backing, that happens to ignore grammatical construction in a sentence.

For the rest? You are still all ignoring "including", and pretending it means something else.

GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

If you answered the general case, than this example shouldn't be that hard.
How many freaking Hull Points does my Land Raider lose after suffering an Immobilized result from a penetrating hit?
You don't even need more than a few symbols.
Hell, it'd even be enough to post a number and click "submit".

It's not irrelevant because you will either contradict yourself or even worse, make a statement that nobody will agree with.
You're cornered, now give it up


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 18:21:46


Post by: liturgies of blood


nosferatu1001 wrote:

GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

Citation needed! The faq says no such thing. It does not make a blanket statement for all immobilisation results.
That feeds right into the logical trap of two hp being lost to a pen that causes immobilisation. The rules on vehicle damage call for additional damage to the inflicting of a HP loss, so the additional damage is then rolled for. The two are related by just that.





Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 18:26:45


Post by: Grey Templar


Indeed, if that were true a vehicle that takes a Pen and gets Immobilized would lose 2 Hull points total. Thats not right.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 19:42:29


Post by: rigeld2


 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, if that were true a vehicle that takes a Pen and gets Immobilized would lose 2 Hull points total. Thats not right.

Stop asserting that as if it hasn't been addressed. It has. You're incorrect.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 19:45:43


Post by: beigeknight


rigeld2 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, if that were true a vehicle that takes a Pen and gets Immobilized would lose 2 Hull points total. Thats not right.

Stop asserting that as if it hasn't been addressed. It has.


Not very well.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 19:57:18


Post by: Kangodo


rigeld2 wrote:
Stop asserting that as if it hasn't been addressed. It has. You're incorrect.

That's because it hasn't.
The BRB clearly states that a penetrate causes:
1) A Hull Point loss.
2) A roll on the VD-table.

According to you, the roll on the VD-table can also cause a HP-loss if it's 5 (Immobilized).
Therefore it would mean that an Immobilize after a Penetrating hit would cause 2 Hull Points to be removed, which is just ridiculous.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 20:00:02


Post by: Mantel


rigeld2 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, if that were true a vehicle that takes a Pen and gets Immobilized would lose 2 Hull points total. Thats not right.

Stop asserting that as if it hasn't been addressed. It has. You're incorrect.


Most of the reasons I've found in thread that address the double hit scenario are pretty flimsy and require a rewrite of how damage is applied to vehicles when resolving penetrating hits. Can you provide a link or quote to one that addresses this to your satisfaction?

I'm finding it pretty hard to find one that works within the rules of penetrating hits. I've found ones that say that HP loss is included in the damage results table but the book clearly states that HP loss is separate from the damage result table and the damage result table is an additional modifier applied after the HP loss has been resolved. I've found some others that go A+B=C so B+E=C or something along that lines and didn't explain the point they where trying to make at all and just ignored the steps that must be taken after a penetrating hit.

I'm going with nosferatu1001's answer to this question, "meaning that the DT-immobilised result is a special result, separate to the normal immobilised result" because it's just that, a special rule that allows immobilise to include a HP loss in a special scenario.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 21:31:45


Post by: Tye_Informer


Kangodo wrote:
But let me ask you one question:
I have a Land Raider.
Someone fires a Lascannon (STR9 - AP2).
He hits. He penetrates.
He rolls a 4, adds 1 and my Land Raider is Immobilized!

How many Hull Points does my Land Raider lose?


Your Land Raider has suffered an Immobilized result, including losting a HP. If it started with 4, it now has 3. That is 1 HP loss.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 21:36:16


Post by: Kangodo


Tye_Informer wrote:
Your Land Raider has suffered an Immobilized result, including losting a HP. If it started with 4, it now has 3. That is 1 HP loss.

I know
But their argument was that an Immobilized result gives a Hull Point loss.
Combined with the Hull Point loss from the Penetrating hit, that would make the total 2 HP loss.
So that's why I asked them, hoping that they would see the error in it.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 21:38:49


Post by: Tye_Informer


Kangodo wrote:
Tye_Informer wrote:
Your Land Raider has suffered an Immobilized result, including losting a HP. If it started with 4, it now has 3. That is 1 HP loss.

I know
But their argument was that an Immobilized result gives a Hull Point loss.
Combined with the Hull Point loss from the Penetrating hit, that would make the total 2 HP loss.
So that's why I asked them, hoping that they would see the error in it.


So you agree that an immobilized result, like your Land Raider received in the example, included losing 1 HP. That's the point that we are all making.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 21:44:16


Post by: Matt.Kingsley


It lost 1 hull point from the penetrating hit, not from rolling immobilised.

Immobilised does not mean you lose a hull point.

If it did, then that Land Raider would have lost 2.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 21:47:39


Post by: Kangodo


Tye_Informer wrote:
So you agree that an immobilized result, like your Land Raider received in the example, included losing 1 HP. That's the point that we are all making.

No no no no!
The Vehicle Damage-table does not include losing Hull Points.
The only thing that can cause a vehicle to lose a Hull Point in (normal) shooting is a glancing or penetrating hit.
After this penetrating hit you will roll on the Vehicle Damage table to find what the additional "damage" is, but none of those 5 effects can ever cause another loss of Hull Point.

So in short: An Immobilized result does not give a Hull Point loss!


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:05:31


Post by: nosferatu1001


 liturgies of blood wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

Citation needed! The faq says no such thing. It does not make a blanket statement for all immobilisation results.
That feeds right into the logical trap of two hp being lost to a pen that causes immobilisation. The rules on vehicle damage call for additional damage to the inflicting of a HP loss, so the additional damage is then rolled for. The two are related by just that.



So, again, you are claiming there are TWO immobilised results that are possible? Please provide proof of this, for the SIXTH time of asking, or retract it. You are claiming that there are two different immobilised results, so actually prove it, or concede you cannot do so.

Once you have done that, you are back to only a single immobilised result, which includes a HP loss

Kangodo - again, this has been answered. You are making an irrelevant argument, as you are claiming that a result you dont agree with makes the argument incorrect. Poor logical fallacy, yet again, which along with your trolling accusations makes someone even less likely to want to respond to you, Try reading the tenets, theyre really useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote:


So in short: An Immobilized result does not give a Hull Point loss!


Directly contradicted by a very simple and straightforward sentence you have decided to alter the wording of to fit your idea of how the rules should read

Impressive


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:15:26


Post by: puma713


nosferatu1001 wrote:


GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP


If this is true, then you must lose 2 on rolling an immobilised result after a pen. There is no way out of that if the above statement is true.

You roll a penetrating hit. Per the rulebook page 74:

After deducting any Hull Points. . .

So we just deducted 1 for the penetrating hit. Now, we find out what happens.

. . .roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armor.

So, now we roll a D6. And since GW has "redefined that an immoibilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP", then we must lose another if we roll 5.

I have not seen anything in this thread that refutes that with any sort of validity. I've seen stammering conclusions that somehow it is included in the roll, when it doesn't say that anywhere. And if it is included in the roll, it is not longer included in the immobilise result. So you may want to stop repeating that this claim has been refuted, because it has not.

Also, I think it is interesting that people are taking a specific FAQ ruling and making blanket statements upon all of the rules. Folks did that once before with splitting combat squads in reserves and made a big mess that could've been easily avoided.

Let's not ignore the Law of Economy (or Occam's Razor) - don't multiply beyond necessity. If you have to make 2 or 3 logical leaps to make an immobilised result incur the loss of HP in every situation, you're doing too much work. It is much easier, and therefore probably correct that it does not, and it only means that at HP is lost on a DT test.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:21:54


Post by: undertow


nosferatu1001 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

Citation needed! The faq says no such thing. It does not make a blanket statement for all immobilisation results.
That feeds right into the logical trap of two hp being lost to a pen that causes immobilisation. The rules on vehicle damage call for additional damage to the inflicting of a HP loss, so the additional damage is then rolled for. The two are related by just that.



So, again, you are claiming there are TWO immobilised results that are possible? Please provide proof of this, for the SIXTH time of asking, or retract it. You are claiming that there are two different immobilised results, so actually prove it, or concede you cannot do so.

Once you have done that, you are back to only a single immobilised result, which includes a HP loss

I don't think he's claiming there are two possible immobilised results.

Could you please explain again why we are supposed to ignore the HP loss from the Penetrating hit that caused the roll on the damage chart?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:32:39


Post by: Tomb King


 puma713 wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:


GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP


If this is true, then you must lose 2 on rolling an immobilised result after a pen. There is no way out of that if the above statement is true.

You roll a penetrating hit. Per the rulebook page 74:

After deducting any Hull Points. . .

So we just deducted 1 for the penetrating hit. Now, we find out what happens.

. . .roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armor.

So, now we roll a D6. And since GW has "redefined that an immoibilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP", then we must lose another if we roll 5.

I have not seen anything in this thread that refutes that with any sort of validity. I've seen stammering conclusions that somehow it is included in the roll, when it doesn't say that anywhere. And if it is included in the roll, it is not longer included in the immobilise result. So you may want to stop repeating that this claim has been refuted, because it has not.

Also, I think it is interesting that people are taking a specific FAQ ruling and making blanket statements upon all of the rules. Folks did that once before with splitting combat squads in reserves and made a big mess that could've been easily avoided.

Let's not ignore the Law of Economy (or Occam's Razor) - don't multiply beyond necessity. If you have to make 2 or 3 logical leaps to make an immobilised result incur the loss of HP in every situation, you're doing too much work. It is much easier, and therefore probably correct that it does not, and it only means that at HP is lost on a DT test.



I read the first sentence of you posted and . Your argument is still based on the 2 hp lost. A standard you put in place to make your argument sound better. No one has stated that it loses a second hull point. Merely that any route that gets to the vehicle to the point of being immobilized involves that vehicle losing a hp in one way, shape, or form. I am having trouble understanding how this is so hard to comprehend and why you are think that is a 2nd hp lost?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:47:40


Post by: puma713


 Tomb King wrote:
 puma713 wrote:


*sniped for brevity*



I read the first sentence of you posted and . Your argument is still based on the 2 hp lost. A standard you put in place to make your argument sound better.


Um no. I didn't "put it in place". It is the unfortunate consequence of a hull point loss being instrinsically tied to an immobilised result. I suppose you haven't been reading the past few pages.

 Tomb King wrote:
No one has stated that it loses a second hull point.


Now you have me . The reason that no one has stated that it loses a second hull point is because it would damage their argument. The argument is that an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point at all times also means that if you roll an immobilised result after a penetrating hit, that you must also lose a second hull point. One from the penetrating shot, and one from the immobilise result, which now, according to nos has been "redefined to include a hull point loss." See how you lose two now?

 Tomb King wrote:
Merely that any route that gets to the vehicle to the point of being immobilized involves that vehicle losing a hp in one way, shape, or form.


What you just said above is nowhere in the rules. You're assuming that however you get to immobilised, you lose a HP. If we need to go back 7 pages we can, but the only ways to lose a hull point are Glancing Hits, Penetrating Hits and failing a DT test. Where in the Immobile rule does it say that you just did any of those three thinqs? It says you are to be treated as if you suffered an immobilised result. That means, read the immobilise result and find out how your unit is reacting. You suffer a hull point loss at the step before suffering an immobilise result - not because you suffered an immobilised result.

If it means that simply because you suffered an immobilised result, it also means that you lose a hull point, then you must, by definition, lose two when you roll a 5 on the damage chart.

 Tomb King wrote:
I am having trouble understanding


I know.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:49:59


Post by: nosferatu1001


Undertow - I never said that we should ignore it. He MUST be saying there are two types of immobilisation result, because - according to the FAQ - one definitely INCLUDES HP loss. If you are stating it does not, then either the FAQ is lying - which it cannot do - or there are, indeed, 2. Or, there is one.

Dodging around this point is not helping the argument conclude - either you have defined a new immobilisation result, without any rules backing, or you have to accept GW changed the rules to state that immobilisation INCLUDES HP loss. The latter is easy, because thats what they actually did do.

Puma - which I've already said once before in this thread - that with that change to the rules, you now take 2HP. Which is almost certainly stupid, however this wouldnt be the first time GW change rules without thinking it through.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:53:03


Post by: puma713


nosferatu1001 wrote:

Puma - which I've already said once before in this thread - that with that change to the rules, you now take 2HP. Which is almost certainly stupid, however this wouldnt be the first time GW change rules without thinking it through.


So, I'm just curious now: are you going to make your opponents lose 2 when you pen them and roll a 5?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:54:31


Post by: Matt.Kingsley


GW is using include how in addition is used.

they are saying include this result, not that a hull point is part of the immobilised result!


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:57:53


Post by: Tomb King


 puma713 wrote:
 Tomb King wrote:
 puma713 wrote:


*sniped for brevity*



I read the first sentence of you posted and . Your argument is still based on the 2 hp lost. A standard you put in place to make your argument sound better.


Um no. I didn't "put it in place". It is the unfortunate consequence of a hull point loss being instrinsically tied to an immobilised result. I suppose you haven't been reading the past few pages.

 Tomb King wrote:
No one has stated that it loses a second hull point.


Now you have me . The reason that no one has stated that it loses a second hull point is because it would damage their argument. The argument is that an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point at all times also means that if you roll an immobilised result after a penetrating hit, that you must also lose a second hull point. One from the penetrating shot, and one from the immobilise result, which now, according to nos has been "redefined to include a hull point loss." See how you lose two now?

 Tomb King wrote:
Merely that any route that gets to the vehicle to the point of being immobilized involves that vehicle losing a hp in one way, shape, or form.


What you just said above is nowhere in the rules. You're assuming that however you get to immobilised, you lose a HP. If we need to go back 7 pages we can, but the only ways to lose a hull point are Glancing Hits, Penetrating Hits and failing a DT test. Where in the Immobile rule does it say that you just did any of those three thinqs? It says you are to be treated as if you suffered an immobilised result. That means, read the immobilise result and find out how your unit is reacting. You suffer a hull point loss at the step before suffering an immobilise result - not because you suffered an immobilised result.

If it means that simply because you suffered an immobilised result, it also means that you lose a hull point, then you must, by definition, lose two when you roll a 5 on the damage chart.

 Tomb King wrote:
I am having trouble understanding


I know.



Alright I guess I am assuming when 100% of the time something happens that it actually happens. What a silly thing to do.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:59:50


Post by: puma713


 Tomb King wrote:
 puma713 wrote:


*snip*



Alright I guess I am assuming when 100% of the time something happens that it actually happens. What a silly thing to do.


Please stop mass-quoting text, especially if it is to make a snarky remark that doesn't actually move the debate in one way or another.




Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 22:59:52


Post by: rigeld2


Mantel wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, if that were true a vehicle that takes a Pen and gets Immobilized would lose 2 Hull points total. Thats not right.

Stop asserting that as if it hasn't been addressed. It has. You're incorrect.


Most of the reasons I've found in thread that address the double hit scenario are pretty flimsy and require a rewrite of how damage is applied to vehicles when resolving penetrating hits. Can you provide a link or quote to one that addresses this to your satisfaction?

I'm finding it pretty hard to find one that works within the rules of penetrating hits. I've found ones that say that HP loss is included in the damage results table but the book clearly states that HP loss is separate from the damage result table and the damage result table is an additional modifier applied after the HP loss has been resolved. I've found some others that go A+B=C so B+E=C or something along that lines and didn't explain the point they where trying to make at all and just ignored the steps that must be taken after a penetrating hit.

I'm going with nosferatu1001's answer to this question, "meaning that the DT-immobilised result is a special result, separate to the normal immobilised result" because it's just that, a special rule that allows immobilise to include a HP loss in a special scenario.

You don't suffer a second HP loss because the initial Penetrating hull point is part of the result - ie included.
You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

You must still roll even if the Hull Point damage wrecks the vehicle (page 74) showing that each result includes hull point loss.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 23:00:05


Post by: Rorschach9


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Undertow - I never said that we should ignore it. He MUST be saying there are two types of immobilisation result, because - according to the FAQ - one definitely INCLUDES HP loss. If you are stating it does not, then either the FAQ is lying - which it cannot do - or there are, indeed, 2. Or, there is one.

Dodging around this point is not helping the argument conclude - either you have defined a new immobilisation result, without any rules backing, or you have to accept GW changed the rules to state that immobilisation INCLUDES HP loss. The latter is easy, because thats what they actually did do.


Yes, GW changed a rule (by adding the loss of a hull point to the failure of a DT test).

Of course the FAQ is not lying. It states you include the loss of a hull point, along with the immobilisation results for the failing of a DT test. To continue to ignore the portion of the sentence that very clearly states that it is a result of FAILING A DT TEST is to ignore a portion of the rules. Ignoring a portion of the rules means you're not using the rules as written, which you are more than welcome to do, however, as written it is included in the results of failing a dt test.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 23:05:50


Post by: puma713


rigeld2 wrote:

You don't suffer a second HP loss because the initial Penetrating hull point is part of the result - ie included.


Where is this explained, between the FAQ and the rulebook? All I see is a FAQ addressing Dangerous Terrain tests and information about penetrating hit in the rulebook. Nowhere does it mention the above statement. So a page and paragraph would be great.

rigeld2 wrote:
You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.


Both of these are true. But your conclusion is a fallacy of faulty generalization:

X is true for A.
X is true for B.
Therefore X must be true for C.

This is incorrect.


rigeld2 wrote:
You must still roll even if the Hull Point damage wrecks the vehicle (page 74) showing that each result includes hull point loss.


This is blatantly incorrect. No results include a hull point loss. If you remove the penetrating hit out of the rules completely (which is what the Immobile rule does), how do the damage charts make you lose a hull point? Where is that stated?

Edit:

If the Immobile rule said that you became immobile as if you had failed a dangerous terrain test, I would agree with you all day.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 23:07:04


Post by: insaniak


 undertow wrote:
Could you please explain again why we are supposed to ignore the HP loss from the Penetrating hit that caused the roll on the damage chart?

You're not. What I believe GW were trying to do with the DT re-word was establish that damage = hull point loss. They did so in a way that overlooked the way the process actually works, which is perfectly in keeping with how the current batch of FAQs was written... They were clearly done by someone who had read the 6th edition rules a couple of times and made it all up from there based on what they thought made sense... and in several instances, they got it horribly wrong.

As the rules currently stand, there is certainly an argument for an immobilised result causing 2 HPs to drop, thanks to the re-word of the difficult terrain rules... but I seriously doubt anyone is actually going to play that way. The way I'll be playing it for now at least is that any time the vehicle takes damage, whether a glancing or penetrating hit occurred or not, the vehicle will lose a hull point because I think that makes the most sense in light of the FAQ. I would, however, make an exception to this for Immobile vehicles until GW decide to FAQ it one way or the other, because as many have pointed out, the vehicle losing a hull point just for landing as intended is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than the 4th edition ruling... but I would hope that GW learnt something from the general reception that ruling got from Marine players... A guy can dream, after all.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 23:08:32


Post by: DutchSage


Not sure if already mentioned (tried to read all the replies, but since a lot of the arguments have been repeated several times I lost track of what I already had read and what not), but what about the following:

The "Immobile" special rule of a Droppod says: "..., and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised damage result".

Where does it say that this result has to be settled the turn it lands. No where does it say the immobilsed damage result is caused by landing. This is a vehicle that has the property of ALWAYS acting as if it has suffered an immobilised damage result. To me the most likely scenario would be:

The immobilised damage result is a qualifier to show what the "Immobile" special rule entails in the game. Since there is no cause that triggers the immobilised damage result you do not need to resolve any additional actions. It simply follows the continueing effects of being immobilised.

If for some reason you do want to subtract a HP, this would then have to be done before the game starts (which I am unsure if even possible). And then the question arrises whether or not this HP deduction is already part of the Drop Pod profile or not.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 23:17:51


Post by: rigeld2


 puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

You don't suffer a second HP loss because the initial Penetrating hull point is part of the result - ie included.

Where is this explained, between the FAQ and the rulebook? All I see is a FAQ addressing Dangerous Terrain tests and information about penetrating hit in the rulebook. Nowhere does it mention the above statement. So a page and paragraph would be great.

It's a statement based on reading the relevant rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.


Both of these are true. But your conclusion is a fallacy of faulty generalization:

X is true for A.
X is true for B.
Therefore X must be true for C.

This is incorrect.

So you cannot suffer a pen result without also suffering hull point damage, and vice versa. That's all I was saying. I'm not sure what "C" you're referring to.


rigeld2 wrote:
You must still roll even if the Hull Point damage wrecks the vehicle (page 74) showing that each result includes hull point loss.


This is blatantly incorrect. No results include a hull point loss. If you remove the penetrating hit out of the rules completely (which is what the Immobile rule does), how do the damage charts make you lose a hull point? Where is that stated?

They don't.
But because its they're, they include hull point loss. The DT errata solidifies this by saying that the hull point damage is included in the damage result.

If the Immobile rule said that you became immobile as if you had failed a dangerous terrain test, I would agree with you all day.

And I'd be saying that's a chicken/egg problem.

The DT Immobilize includes a Hull Point loss, correct?
According to you, the DT Immobilize is different from the result when you roll, correct? (I'm saying this because you are adamant that the roll does not include hull point loss)


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 23:28:54


Post by: puma713


rigeld2 wrote:
puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.


Both of these are true. But your conclusion is a fallacy of faulty generalization:

X is true for A.
X is true for B.
Therefore X must be true for C.

This is incorrect.

So you cannot suffer a pen result without also suffering hull point damage, and vice versa. That's all I was saying. I'm not sure what "C" you're referring to.


A = You lose a hull point for suffering a pen.
B = You suffer a pen when you roll on the damage chart and score 'immobilised'.

C = Therefore, if you suffer an 'immobilised', you must have lost a hull point.

This is not true.

rigeld2 wrote:
puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
You must still roll even if the Hull Point damage wrecks the vehicle (page 74) showing that each result includes hull point loss.


This is blatantly incorrect. No results include a hull point loss. If you remove the penetrating hit out of the rules completely (which is what the Immobile rule does), how do the damage charts make you lose a hull point? Where is that stated?


They don't.


That'll do.

puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
If the Immobile rule said that you became immobile as if you had failed a dangerous terrain test, I would agree with you all day.


And I'd be saying that's a chicken/egg problem.

The DT Immobilize includes a Hull Point loss, correct?


First of all, there is no DT immobilise. There is a failed DT test. The failed DT test gained the inclusion of a hull point loss. So, in essence, yes, a DT immobilise includes a hull point loss, but not because of the immobilisation, but because of the failed DT test.

rigeld2 wrote:
According to you, the DT Immobilize is different from the result when you roll, correct? (I'm saying this because you are adamant that the roll does not include hull point loss)


No, it is the same result as when you are penned. The difference is I think the FAQ is referencing the DT test giving you the hull point loss, not the damage table. Because, if it was the damage table, I'd be trying to tell my opponents that they lose 2 HPs on an immobilise result, which I don't believe to be the truth.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 23:39:03


Post by: insaniak


I have removed several posts that were starting to verge on attacking each other rather than addressing the topic. Please stick to discussing the actual issue at hand, rather than how other posters choose to present their arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 puma713 wrote:
The difference is I think the FAQ is referencing the DT test giving you the hull point loss, not the damage table.

Which would be true if the errata said that you also lose a hull point, rather than that it is included in being immobilised.

I can accept that it's possibly what the writer of the errata was intending... but what he wrote doesn't match that.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/11 23:47:41


Post by: Khalbrae


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Undertow - I never said that we should ignore it. He MUST be saying there are two types of immobilisation result, because - according to the FAQ - one definitely INCLUDES HP loss. If you are stating it does not, then either the FAQ is lying - which it cannot do - or there are, indeed, 2. Or, there is one.

Dodging around this point is not helping the argument conclude - either you have defined a new immobilisation result, without any rules backing, or you have to accept GW changed the rules to state that immobilisation INCLUDES HP loss. The latter is easy, because thats what they actually did do.

Puma - which I've already said once before in this thread - that with that change to the rules, you now take 2HP. Which is almost certainly stupid, however this wouldnt be the first time GW change rules without thinking it through.


Prettymuch the point I made so many pages ago.

That being said, it's easy enough to play without immobilize causing an extra needless hp loss.


 insaniak wrote:
I have removed several posts that were starting to verge on attacking each other rather than addressing the topic. Please stick to discussing the actual issue at hand, rather than how other posters choose to present their arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 puma713 wrote:
The difference is I think the FAQ is referencing the DT test giving you the hull point loss, not the damage table.

Which would be true if the errata said that you also lose a hull point, rather than that it is included in being immobilised.

I can accept that it's possibly what the writer of the errata was intending... but what he wrote doesn't match that.


Seems GW has made a sweeping change that hurts everybody significantly and Drop pods more so?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 00:07:58


Post by: rigeld2


 puma713 wrote:


A = You lose a hull point for suffering a pen.
B = You suffer a pen when you roll on the damage chart and score 'immobilised'.

C = Therefore, if you suffer an 'immobilised', you must have lost a hull point.

This is not true.

That's not my assertion. You'd know that if you argued against what I said instead of what you want me to say.
A: You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
B: You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

Therefore if you suffer a damage result you must have lost a hull point. I know that's exactly what I said because I just copy/pasted it.

Edited by insaniak. It wasn't a request. Stick to the topic.

puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
If the Immobile rule said that you became immobile as if you had failed a dangerous terrain test, I would agree with you all day.


And I'd be saying that's a chicken/egg problem.

The DT Immobilize includes a Hull Point loss, correct?


First of all, there is no DT immobilise. There is a failed DT test. The failed DT test gained the inclusion of a hull point loss. So, in essence, yes, a DT immobilise includes a hull point loss, but not because of the immobilisation, but because of the failed DT test.

So you're ignoring the actual wording of the errata? Because the errata says that the immobilize includes the HP loss, not the DT test failure.

rigeld2 wrote:
According to you, the DT Immobilize is different from the result when you roll, correct? (I'm saying this because you are adamant that the roll does not include hull point loss)


No, it is the same result as when you are penned. The difference is I think the FAQ is referencing the DT test giving you the hull point loss, not the damage table. Because, if it was the damage table, I'd be trying to tell my opponents that they lose 2 HPs on an immobilise result, which I don't believe to be the truth.

If I give you $5.00 including your lunch money does the $5.00 include your lunch money?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 00:20:05


Post by: Rorschach9


rigeld2 wrote:


A: You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
B: You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

Therefore if you suffer a damage result you must have lost a hull point. I know that's exactly what I said because I just copy/pasted it.



A and B are both correct. When you are immobilised from the drop pod Immobile rule you are not rolling on the table however. So neither A or B affect that.


rigeld2 wrote:

If I give you $5.00 including your lunch money does the $5.00 include your lunch money?


Yes. But, unlike the FAQ, this is a 2 part question. The FAQ is 3 parts (Failed DT test, immobilized result including a hull point loss)

So let's rephrase. When you leave the house, I will give you $5 including your lunch money. Does the $5 include your lunch money? Yes. If you don't leave the house, am I giving you your lunch money? No.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 00:26:50


Post by: puma713


rigeld2 wrote:

If I give you $5.00 including your lunch money does the $5.00 include your lunch money?


First of all, that is a poor example. My lunch money could be $3.00. So, if you give me $5.00 including my lunch money, that could mean you just gave me $8.00. You'd have to qualify that the $5.00 does, in fact, include the $3.00 that is supposed to be for lunch. You're not saying that you gave me $5.00 (which includes the money for lunch), you simply said that you gave me $5.00, including any money that I would use for lunch, which could be anything.

Second of all, we're now going back 5 pages or so, back to putting on pants or not. And it looks like we're going to keep going back and forth saying the same thing, so, since neither of us are prepared to give ground and it seems that we each don't understand how the other can't see it our way, I think it's time that we agree to disagree.

Still curious, though nosferatu: since you've said now that you agree with the 2-hull point loss, is that HYWPI?


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 00:42:29


Post by: insaniak


Rorschach9 wrote:
The FAQ is 3 parts (Failed DT test, immobilized result including a hull point loss)

That's two things, not three... because the third thing is included in the second.


If you don't leave the house, am I giving you your lunch money? No.

...Because you're not handing over any money.

So all you've established there is that a vehicle that doesn't take damage doesn't lose a hull point...


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 00:51:10


Post by: Rorschach9


 insaniak wrote:
Rorschach9 wrote:
The FAQ is 3 parts (Failed DT test, immobilized result including a hull point loss)

That's two things, not three... because the third thing is included in the second.


We will all just have to agree to disagree then. It is 3 parts in my reading (and many others apparently) as if you fail the DT test you are immobilized, including a hull point loss. That does NOT say "Immmobilized result includes a hull point loss". Those are entirely different statements and leaving out a portion of the sentence means you are changing the rule being provided.

If you don't leave the house, am I giving you your lunch money? No.

...Because you're not handing over any money.

So all you've established there is that a vehicle that doesn't take damage doesn't lose a hull point...


I have also shown that they are two entirely different statements, simply by removing a portion of a sentence.

The only statements within the Rules and FAQ's that require the loss of a hull point are Glancing, Penetrating and failed DT test. Pen is followed by a roll on the damage table. Failed DT test is followed by a pre-determined result on the damage table. "including the loss of a hull point" changes the original DT test rule that ONLY had you suffer immobilised.

But .. agree to disagree I guess. I don't really see it as a game changer in either case.




Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 01:10:57


Post by: Kangodo


Let me ask a few questions to explain it and get to the bottom of the issue:
1) Do you agree that a Penetrating hit has two separate effects: a) lose a hull point and b) roll on the VD-table.
2) Do you think that "Immobilized" on the VD-table causes a loss of HP.
3) Do you think that penetrating a vehicle and rolling "Immobilized" results into a total HP-loss of 2?

 insaniak wrote:
Which would be true if the errata said that you also lose a hull point, rather than that it is included in being immobilised.

But again: It does not say it's included in being immobilized.
It says, copied from the website: “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.

That means it can refer to failing the Dangerous Terrain test ánd the result from the Vehicle Damage table.
Seeing as they did not FAQ the VD-table, including it to the VD-result would break the rules.
Therefore the conclusion is that it is included in failing the DT-test, which doesn't break any rule.

rigeld2 wrote:
You don't suffer a second HP loss because the initial Penetrating hull point is part of the result - ie included.
You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

You must still roll even if the Hull Point damage wrecks the vehicle (page 74) showing that each result includes hull point loss.

No, the Hull Point loss is not part of the result.
It's even BOLDED in my Rulebook: "After deducing any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour."
As you can see, a penetrating shot has two effects: HP-loss and a Vehicle Damage-result. None has anything to do with the other.

You cannot be penetrated without rolling on the table, nor can you roll on the table without Penetrating.
But a Drop Pod doesn't ask you to roll on the table, it says it's Immobilized and refers to the VD-table to explain what Immobilized means.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 02:08:52


Post by: rigeld2


Rorschach9 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:


A: You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
B: You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

Therefore if you suffer a damage result you must have lost a hull point. I know that's exactly what I said because I just copy/pasted it.



A and B are both correct. When you are immobilised from the drop pod Immobile rule you are not rolling on the table however. So neither A or B affect that.

So despite the errata specifically stating that it is the result from the Vehicle Damage Table, you're treating the DT damage differently than the Pen damage?


rigeld2 wrote:

If I give you $5.00 including your lunch money does the $5.00 include your lunch money?


Yes. But, unlike the FAQ, this is a 2 part question. The FAQ is 3 parts (Failed DT test, immobilized result including a hull point loss)

So let's rephrase. When you leave the house, I will give you $5 including your lunch money. Does the $5 include your lunch money? Yes. If you don't leave the house, am I giving you your lunch money? No.

Correct, if you take no damage you don't lose a Hull Point.
And that's still only 2 parts because one includes another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote:
No, the Hull Point loss is not part of the result.
It's even BOLDED in my Rulebook: "After deducing any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour."
As you can see, a penetrating shot has two effects: HP-loss and a Vehicle Damage-result. None has anything to do with the other.

If they have nothing to do with one another, then it must be possible to suffer a Penetrating hull point without rolling on the table. Please explain how.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 02:23:47


Post by: Kangodo


rigeld2 wrote:
So despite the errata specifically stating that it is the result from the Vehicle Damage Table, you're treating the DT damage differently than the Pen damage?
Do you want me to quote the errata again?
How many times do I have to mention that the “including blabla” can refer to the failing of the DT-test?
Would it help if I got people with Majors in English to support that?

I will admit that it’s not the most beautiful line in the language, but it can refer to the first part.

If they have nothing to do with one another, then it must be possible to suffer a Penetrating hull point without rolling on the table. Please explain how.

No, now you are discussing things I have never said.

A Penetrating hit doesn’t do anything on its own, it’s just the name of a rule.
It’s a rule that says:
1) Subtract one Hull Point.
2) Roll a D6, add modifiers and see what it does on the Vehicle Damage-table
That are two separate effects that have nothing to do with eachother, but both are what you need to do if you get a Penetrating hit (A Penetrating hit is when STR+D6>AV)

So the Hull Point loss that you get from a hit, comes from part 1 of the Penetrating hit-ruling and not from part 2.
That means a Drop Pod can’t lose a Hull Point since the Vehicle Damage-table doesn’t make you lose Hull Points.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 02:29:42


Post by: rigeld2


Kangodo wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
So despite the errata specifically stating that it is the result from the Vehicle Damage Table, you're treating the DT damage differently than the Pen damage?
Do you want me to quote the errata again?
How many times do I have to mention that the “including blabla” can refer to the failing of the DT-test?
Would it help if I got people with Majors in English to support that?

I will admit that it’s not the most beautiful line in the language, but it can refer to the first part.

It really can't. If X then Y, including A.
A is part of Y, not X.

If they have nothing to do with one another, then it must be possible to suffer a Penetrating hull point without rolling on the table. Please explain how.

No, now you are discussing things I have never said.

Well, you did say that the hull point and damage result have nothing to do with the other. I even quoted it.

A Penetrating hit doesn’t do anything on its own, it’s just the name of a rule.
It’s a rule that says:
1) Subtract one Hull Point.
2) Roll a D6, add modifiers and see what it does on the Vehicle Damage-table
That are two separate effects that have nothing to do with eachother, but both are what you need to do if you get a Penetrating hit (A Penetrating hit is when STR+D6>AV)

And if they have nothing to do with each other then they're separable. If they're separable they must be able to be suffered separately.
Please explain how.
If they cannot be suffered separately then they're intertwined - one is included with the other.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 02:41:32


Post by: Kangodo


rigeld2 wrote:
It really can't. If X then Y, including A.
A is part of Y, not X.

If you fail your exam you will get grounded, including a stop to your pocket money.
Does that indicate that you never get pocket money when you are grounded? No, it doesn’t.
Well, you did say that the hull point and damage result have nothing to do with the other. I even quoted it.
And how does that bring you to: “then it must be possible to suffer a Penetrating hull point without rolling on the table.”
I literally said that a Penetrating hit has these two effects!
It’s even written down in the BRB like that: After doing 1), do 2).

And if they have nothing to do with each other then they're separable. If they're separable they must be able to be suffered separately.
Please explain how.
If they cannot be suffered separately then they're intertwined - one is included with the other.

Easy! A glancing hit: That way you can get effect 1, without 2.
Penetrating hit is just a rule that says: “Do both!”


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 02:48:38


Post by: Rorschach9


rigeld2 wrote:
It really can't. If X then Y, including A.
A is part of Y, not X.


Conversely ; Y, including A happens IF X. If no X, then what happens? Right.. that's not in the Errata. Only "IF X, then Y including A".

Removing X does not therefore conclude that Y must include A. Y must include A IF X occurs.

Yep. Basic English comprehension AND math.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 02:51:28


Post by: Mantel


rigeld2 wrote:
That's not my assertion. You'd know that if you argued against what I said instead of what you want me to say.
A: You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
B: You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

Therefore if you suffer a damage result you must have lost a hull point. I know that's exactly what I said because I just copy/pasted it.

You've got another strawman there. It's saying all sorts of things without looking at the BRB.

Lets take them one at a time.

A: You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.

You right! Nice one! Well, kind of. You suffer a Penetration hit, and after deducting any Hull Points you get to roll on the vehicle damage table which results in a damage modifier.

B: You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

errr, you really should read the BRB again, it does not state that you must lose a hull point AFTER rolling on the table just that a penetrating hit make you lose a HP and you must make an ADDITIONAL roll on the table. There is no-where in the book that says you must suffer a HP loss before using this table, you have said "You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss." therefore you must prove your point, please provide some text, page number or otherwise that states that you MUST suffer a HP loss before using the damage table in question. Please, quote a full sentence rather than a fragment.

I'm going to quote something now, fair warning.

"After deducting any Hull Points, roll aD6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour. Apply any appropriate modifiers" Please show me in this quote OR in the Penetrating hits paragraph that is mentioned in the Resolving Damage section of the BRB that shows a hull point loss is included in the Vehicle Damage table. Please don't just quote half the errata, if you want to quote something then do it in it's full context. If asking you to quote something in full context breaks your argument, well then...

It is fairly clear that it does not change the penetrating hit rule nor does it change the results from the Vehicle Damage table. The penetrating hit rule includes a HP loss and makes and ADDITIONAL roll to MODIFIY that damage with a result from the damage table. The damage table makes a modification to allow an additional penalty NOT to allow an additional HP loss.



Please, someone! Please tell me the reason that a penetrating hit that results in an immobilisation modifier does NOT suffer -2hp because immobilisation includes -1hp. It doesn't make sense! A penetrating hit causes -1hp and then an additional immobilisation result is added to it as a modifier! It does not make sense! The immobilisation result is an additional damage modifier. Please point me to the altar that everyone of you has explained so far, I cannot find it in this thread. If your going to X=Y+C/B then X and Y the FULL sentence in the errata rather than a sentence fragment.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 04:58:11


Post by: insaniak


Kangodo wrote:
How many times do I have to mention that the “including blabla” can refer to the failing of the DT-test?

It won't matter how many times you repeat it if people disagree with the basic premise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote:
If you fail your exam you will get grounded, including a stop to your pocket money.
Does that indicate that you never get pocket money when you are grounded? No, it doesn’t.

No, I'm afraid it does.

The fact that it is listed as something that is included in getting grounded, rather than an additional effect, says that it is a part of being grounded. Everything from 'including' onwards is not new information... it's just a reminder that being grounded includes this particular thing.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 05:45:03


Post by: liturgies of blood


Well I see the debate has progressed well since I went and had dinner with friends.

To both rigeld and nos, I do not think there are two immobilisation results. I think there is one as per the rules on the damage chart. You have refused to engage with the idea that there is only one yourselves with the 2 HP on a pen and immobilised result roll.

So in summary there is either a special rule that makes a statement that is referring to the vehicle damage chart only OR Insaniak is right and immobilised is a double hitter.

Nothing in the BRB states that taking a HP off a vehicle is part of the process of a roll on the vehicle damage chart it is in fact that both are part of the process of resolving a pen. The faq seeks to link the loss of a hull point and an immobilised result in the case of DT, and maybe further cases, but that doesn't link them in the way you are stating. It doesn't say that damage equates to the loss of a HP it only mentions immobilised and does not clearly state that it goes beyond this example.

Now go read the DA codex that will be available from the same places you all get your codex and see what the RAI is for drop pods.



Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 06:28:41


Post by: rigeld2


 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well I see the debate has progressed well since I went and had dinner with friends.

To both rigeld and nos, I do not think there are two immobilisation results. I think there is one as per the rules on the damage chart. You have refused to engage with the idea that there is only one yourselves with the 2 HP on a pen and immobilised result roll.

That's a lie. Both of us have addressed that (in different ways).


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 12:19:50


Post by: Kangodo


rigeld2 wrote:
That's a lie. Both of us have addressed that (in different ways).

Yeah, but NOS addressed that by saying you DO suffer two Hull Point-losses.
Which, although I really really disagree with that, makes sure he correctly uses his conclusion.

The BRB says that a penetrating hit has two effects:
1) Hull Point-loss.
2) Roll on the VD-table.

What you said (I have your post right here, so that's it unless I am really misunderstanding it) is that if you roll "Immobilized" on the VD-table, you suffer a HP-loss and should ignore part 1 of a Penetrating hit.
Correct?
Because if that's correct, you have made a conclusion that breaks the Penetrating hit-rule and therefore cannot be true.

 insaniak wrote:
No, I'm afraid it does.

The fact that it is listed as something that is included in getting grounded, rather than an additional effect, says that it is a part of being grounded. Everything from 'including' onwards is not new information... it's just a reminder that being grounded includes this particular thing.
Seeing as enough people, who are just as good in English as others, disagree that it's a part of being grounded means it might not be a good idea to start a sentence with "the fact..."


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 15:55:02


Post by: rigeld2


Kangodo wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
That's a lie. Both of us have addressed that (in different ways).

Yeah, but NOS addressed that by saying you DO suffer two Hull Point-losses.
Which, although I really really disagree with that, makes sure he correctly uses his conclusion.

The BRB says that a penetrating hit has two effects:
1) Hull Point-loss.
2) Roll on the VD-table.

What you said (I have your post right here, so that's it unless I am really misunderstanding it) is that if you roll "Immobilized" on the VD-table, you suffer a HP-loss and should ignore part 1 of a Penetrating hit.
Correct?
Because if that's correct, you have made a conclusion that breaks the Penetrating hit-rule and therefore cannot be true.

No that's not what I've said. You're either misreading or I've poorly explained it.

If you suffer a penetrating hit and roll a result (which you must) you've suffered a HP loss and a result. Meaning the result includes the HP loss.

 insaniak wrote:
No, I'm afraid it does.

The fact that it is listed as something that is included in getting grounded, rather than an additional effect, says that it is a part of being grounded. Everything from 'including' onwards is not new information... it's just a reminder that being grounded includes this particular thing.
Seeing as enough people, who are just as good in English as others, disagree that it's a part of being grounded means it might not be a good idea to start a sentence with "the fact..."

So you disagree that it is listed as something that is included rather than as an additional effect?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rorschach9 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
It really can't. If X then Y, including A.
A is part of Y, not X.


Conversely ; Y, including A happens IF X. If no X, then what happens? Right.. that's not in the Errata. Only "IF X, then Y including A".

Removing X does not therefore conclude that Y must include A. Y must include A IF X occurs.

Yep. Basic English comprehension AND math.

So you agree that A is part of Y.
Assuming Y does not change (and the errata tells us it does not) then the following is true:
If X then Y (including A). If D then Y.

Which means if D happens, so does A.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 16:45:20


Post by: Kangodo


rigeld2 wrote:
No that's not what I've said. You're either misreading or I've poorly explained it.

If you suffer a penetrating hit and roll a result (which you must) you've suffered a HP loss and a result. Meaning the result includes the HP loss.

So because the VD-table result includes a HP-loss, we should ignore the HP-loss that is included in the Penetrating hit?

The result does NOT include a HP-loss. It are two separate things that both happen when a Penetrating hit is suffered.

So you disagree that it is listed as something that is included rather than as an additional effect?

I disagree that it must be included with the "Immobilized"-effect, it can just as easily be included in the failing of the Dangerous Terrain-test.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 16:49:11


Post by: rigeld2


Kangodo wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
No that's not what I've said. You're either misreading or I've poorly explained it.

If you suffer a penetrating hit and roll a result (which you must) you've suffered a HP loss and a result. Meaning the result includes the HP loss.

So because the VD-table result includes a HP-loss, we should ignore the HP-loss that is included in the Penetrating hit?

The result does NOT include a HP-loss. It are two separate things that both happen when a Penetrating hit is suffered.

No - the fact that they are inseparable results means that the Pen HP and the damage result are intertwined. The damage result includes the Pen HP. I'm sure I've said this before.

So you disagree that it is listed as something that is included rather than as an additional effect?

I disagree that it must be included with the "Immobilized"-effect, it can just as easily be included in the failing of the Dangerous Terrain-test.

Not according to the English language.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 17:09:03


Post by: Kangodo


rigeld2 wrote:
No - the fact that they are inseparable results means that the Pen HP and the damage result are intertwined. The damage result includes the Pen HP. I'm sure I've said this before.
I see where you are coming from.
But I am happy to inform you that you are wrong, sir.

The rules for a 'Penetrating hit' CLEARLY state that first you subtract a Hull Point, then you roll on the table (even when it's wrecked).
It says to do A, then do B.
That means A and B are not intertwined, they are not included in each other in any way and that you should resolve them separately.

You are asking me to simply ignore A, which I cannot do since it would mean I break a rule.

Not according to the English language.
But it has nothing to do with language, it's about logic and math.

We have all agreed that the sentence is: "If X then Y, including A."
You'd be absolutely right if it said "If X then Y including A".
But the small addition of that comma indicates that "including A" can (and in my opinion does) belong to X.
Or even, if you wish, that "including A" belongs to "If X then Y", which wouldn't change a thing.
But never can "including A" refer to only Y.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 17:23:14


Post by: Dozer Blades


I have to disagree with you. You always roll on the table if a vehicle suffers a penetrating hit.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 17:25:19


Post by: rigeld2


Kangodo wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
No - the fact that they are inseparable results means that the Pen HP and the damage result are intertwined. The damage result includes the Pen HP. I'm sure I've said this before.
I see where you are coming from.
But I am happy to inform you that you are wrong, sir.

The rules for a 'Penetrating hit' CLEARLY state that first you subtract a Hull Point, then you roll on the table (even when it's wrecked).
It says to do A, then do B.
That means A and B are not intertwined, they are not included in each other in any way and that you should resolve them separately.

You are asking me to simply ignore A, which I cannot do since it would mean I break a rule.

If they are resolved separately, then why must you roll on the table even after wrecking a vehicle from hull point loss?

Not according to the English language.
But it has nothing to do with language, it's about logic and math.

We have all agreed that the sentence is: "If X then Y, including A."
You'd be absolutely right if it said "If X then Y including A".
But the small addition of that comma indicates that "including A" can (and in my opinion does) belong to X.
Or even, if you wish, that "including A" belongs to "If X then Y", which wouldn't change a thing.
But never can "including A" refer to only Y.

Reading the English language and parsing a sentence has nothing to do with language?
That's... an interesting stance.


Problems with Immobile Drop Pods @ 2013/01/12 17:36:15


Post by: Kangodo


rigeld2 wrote:
If they are resolved separately, then why must you roll on the table even after wrecking a vehicle from hull point loss?
Because the book literally says that.
"You must roll on the VD-table even if the vehicle loses enough HP to be wrecked."
Without that line, you wouldn't have to do it.

Your argument is that a roll on the VD-table always includes a loss of HP, but the rules do not say that.
The VD-result is exactly what the table says, so please stop adding things to it that it doesn't say.

You also come up with words like "Penetrating hit Hull Point" which isn't an official term/ruling either.

Reading the English language and parsing a sentence has nothing to do with language?
That's... an interesting stance.
You could also actually address the argument instead of using up bytes on the internet.
And no, that has nothing to do with language since it's about logic.
It's the same in every language, so I hardly see how this has anything to do with English.