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?

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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

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”.

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.

 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.

 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?

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

 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.

 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

 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?

 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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... :/

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)

 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?

 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.

 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.

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

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).

 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.

 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.

 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)

 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?

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?

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.

 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.

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.

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?

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?

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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?

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

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.

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)

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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).

 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.

 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)

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.

 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?

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

Indeed,

A mandates B+C

E mandates C.

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

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

You're asserting that B only sometimes includes C.

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

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.

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

 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?

 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?

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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, . . ."

 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].

 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?

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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

 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.

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

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

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

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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?

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.

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!!

 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.

 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.

 -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...

@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.

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.

 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. . .

 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.

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

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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'.

 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?

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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?

 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?

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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?

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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?

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.

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.

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.

Please stop asserting that - I've shown why that isn't true.

 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.

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?

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.

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.

 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?

 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.

 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?

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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).

 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.