Drop pods and dangerous terrain tests?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**happypants**

Ok, so I would guess the answer is no but do Drop Pods have to take Dangerous Terrain tests? What happens if they fail, immoblized? Would they be taken on 1 or 2 dice?

**mauleed**

You'd immobilize and immobile vehicle. No point in taking the test.

And before someone says "but you'd lose the gun", you would not. You only lose a weapon on a second immobilization result on the damage chart. Failing a dangerous terrain test is not a result on the damage chart.

**happypants**

Actually Mauleed, you just made a great argument FOR taking the test.

You should take the test because if an enemy wants to destroy the vehicle and it is already immobilized due to dangerous terrain test failed and they roll an immobilized it does mean that the gun is destroyed at that point. (Which gives them full VP's)

**mauleed**

By the time you shot it it's already immobilized, regardless of test. So it loses the gun anyway.

**happypants**

Ok, so I know this has probably been covered, but where in the rules does it say that a drop pod is allready immobilized? Does that mean that your opponent automatically gets half VP's for it? Does that carry over to getting half vp's for models that are stunned at the end of the game? It notes 'immobile' in VP section not 'immobilized'

**Banesword**

How do you know how far the drop pod moved? I dont think deployment even counts as moving.

**Antonin**

Posted By happypants on 06/16/2006 9:44 AM
Ok, so I know this has probably been covered, but where in the rules does it say that a drop pod is allready immobilized? Does that mean that your opponent automatically gets half VP's for it? Does that carry over to getting half vp's for models that are stunned at the end of the game? It notes 'immobile' in VP section not 'immobilized'

What type of vehicle is a droppod? Immobile. Therefore, under the wording of the VP section, yes to 1/2 VP automatically. This dovetails with the Spanish FAQ, by the way.

**happypants**

@Antonin, I agree with you by RAW

Questions arise from this though: Do you get VP's for vehicles that are stunned/shaken at the end of the game?

Going back to the dangerous terrain thing, although a drop pod is immobile, it is NOT immobilised. So a single immoblised result should not count as weapon destroyed.

Is the question of a distinction between Immobile and Immobilised already in the Dakka FAQ request?

**mauleed**

You're attempting to create some dicotomy between "immobilized" and "immobile", and then attaching some sort of loose value to this in the rules.

I'm not seeing any of it.

Immobile vehicles give up half their VPs. We all agree on this. Are you claiming that a vehicle that is immobilized is not also immobile? Plain english tells me it is, but I'd be interested in seeing this argument played out.

**snooggums**

If a vehicle that has been immobilized takes a second immobilized result on the damage chart then it goes to the weapon destroyed. Never does it say that a vehicle that is immobile (not able to move) counts as already being immobilized (rolling an immobilized result on the damage charts).

Until they FAQ it having a movement of 0 (immobile) is not the same as being immobilized (rolled a result on the damage chart).

**mauleed**

I agree, but you've said the reverse of what I've said.

You're saying an immobile vehicle hasn't necessarily been immobilizes (I agree).

I'm saying a vehicle that has been immobilized is immobile.

**snooggums**

Posted By mauleed on 06/16/2006 1:11 PM

I agree, but you've said the reverse of what I've said.

You're saying an immobile vehicle hasn't necessarily been immobilizes (I agree).

I'm saying a vehicle that has been immobilized is immobile.

I don't think it is the reverse. You said.

"By the time you shot it it's already immobilized, regardless of test. So it loses the gun anyway."

But the droppod landing does not immobilize it, so you would have to score two seperate rolls on the damage chart to remove the gun, so if anything the test is only irrelevant because the rough terrain test has not effect on it's movement ability.

I don't have the VP charts handy, does it say "immobilized" or "immobile" as the requirement for victory points? It does matter because the first is the result of an action against the model, the second is a condition based on the vehicles inability to move further for any reason, including not having the opportunity to move after being placed on the table.

**mauleed**

Interesting point.

But I'm not going to try telling people that they need to immobilize my immobile vehicle before I take the storm bolter off, even if it is supported in the rules.

But neat find.

**happypants**

It says 'immobile' not 'immobilised'

Now immobilised IS immobile but immobile is not neccesarily immobilised. The term Immobilised infers that something has had to happen to something to make it immobilised. A conncrete barrier is immobile, it is not immobilised as there was no action taken to make it immobile. A car that has no wheels is immobilised, as it had something happen to it to make it immobile.

So the question is, in the VP area, should it really read 'immobilised' or as it does, 'immobile'

If the answer is 'immobilised' than you have to get a immobilised result on a drop pod to make it such.

If the answer is 'immoble' it means that you get half VP's for it automatically, it also means that any vehichle that is shaken/stunned also gives up half VP's.

**snooggums**

Posted By mauleed on 06/16/2006 1:54 PM

Interesting point.

But I'm not going to try telling people that they need to immobilize my immobile vehicle before I take the storm bolter off, even if it is supported in the rules.

But neat find.

If I was playing drop pods I would also play it the same way since I think having a 'no effect' spot on the damage results for the first roll or so is silly too.

**Saldiven**

I think this would fall under the "least advantageous interpretation" heading.

I, also, would never require a second "Immobilized" result on my Drop Pods before moving to weapon destroyed/etc. Speaking that, I wouldn't pitch a fit if an opponent did make such a requirement; if he/she feels the need to take the more advantageous interpretation of a rule in order to be competitive, by all means go ahead and do so.

Sal.

**Antonin**

Posted By happypants on 06/16/2006 1:55 PM
It says 'immobile' not 'immobilised'

Now immobilised IS immobile but immobile is not neccesarily immobilised. The term Immobilised infers that something has had to happen to something to make it immobilised. A conncrete barrier is immobile, it is not immobilised as there was no action taken to make it immobile. A car that has no wheels is immobilised, as it had something happen to it to make it immobile.

So the question is, in the VP area, should it really read 'immobilised' or as it does, 'immobile'

If the answer is 'immobilised' than you have to get a immobilised result on a drop pod to make it such.

If the answer is 'immoble' it means that you get half VP's for it automatically, it also means that any vehichle that is shaken/stunned also gives up half VP's.

eeeeyeah, I have some problems with this interpretation, the first of which is that the droppod is mobile at first - it moves onto the table - and then becomes immobile. Specifically, it is immobilized by the sudden stop caused by the presence of the ground. So a better example is "do you consider a car which has run into a stone wall to have been immobilised?"

**mauleed**

I didn't see any reference to anything in the rules in there.......

**happypants**

@antonin, HOW a car/rhino/landraider becomes immobilised has nothing to do with anything. It has become immobilised, previously it was mobile. A concrete barrier is IMMOBILE, a drop pod is IMMOBILE, a rhino that has been stunned/shaken can not move therefore it is IMMOBILE.

I would like to note that I have NEVER in a real game and will not EVER ask my opponent for half vp's for vehicles that are stunned/shaken. But it isn't exactly a leap to say that something that can't move is immobile and therefore gives up half vp's....

Which makes you wonder how many VP's Brian Wilson would be worth?

**snooggums**

Posted By happypants on 06/16/2006 8:20 PM
@antonin, HOW a car/rhino/landraider becomes immobilised has nothing to do with anything. It has become immobilised, previously it was mobile. A concrete barrier is IMMOBILE, a drop pod is IMMOBILE, a rhino that has been stunned/shaken can not move therefore it is IMMOBILE.

I would like to note that I have NEVER in a real game and will not EVER ask my opponent for half vp's for vehicles that are stunned/shaken. But it isn't exactly a leap to say that something that can't move is immobile and therefore gives up half vp's....

Which makes you wonder how many VP's Brian Wilson would be worth?

As posted in the other thread stunned is a restriction for their next movement phase, and has nothing to do with the end of the game. Shaken BTW can still move so it is apparent you don't know what you are talking about anyway.

**mughi3**

Posted By happypants on 06/16/2006 9:20 AM
Actually Mauleed, you just made a great argument FOR taking the test.

You should take the test because if an enemy wants to destroy the vehicle and it is already immobilized due to dangerous terrain test failed and they roll an immobilized it does mean that the gun is destroyed at that point. (Which gives them full VP's)

small side point

the victory point rules for vehicles once you have destroyed all weapons and immobilized said vehicle it is worth half points until you get an additional immobilized or weapon destroyed result.

Immobile vehicles give up half their VPs. We all agree on this.

we most certainly do not!

show me where in the rules that it says normally imobile units automatically loose half thier VPs by showing up.

the vehicle rules say specifically that you have to become immmobilied by DAMAGE.

a drop turret, drop pod or other normally immobile unit would not give up VP unless it took damage, unless GW has noted otherwise in some FAQ

i have a friend who does an elysian drop army with sentry turrets if we went by your interpretation he would loose a third of his army just by showing up on the table.

**Longshot**

You might want to read the rules again Mughi. There's actually a thread about the whole immobile thing.

**mughi3**

Posted By Longshot on 06/18/2006 6:27 PM
You might want to read the rules again Mughi. There's actually a thread about the whole immobile thing.

thats nice, the fact that they have to"agree" on it, means there is no applicable rule from GW.

GAH!! damn hopefull GW will fix it in a FAQ/update since drop pods, gun sentries and other non mobile units are not even adressed in the core rulebook

something funny i just noticed

drop pods cost ZERO points

now i know your all going WTF they cost 30 points.......

note this little part at the end of the entry

"a drop pod always has the power of the machine spirit upgrade, this has been included in it's points cost" P35

page 22 says power of the machine spirit costs 30 points, so your paying for the computer and the pod itself is free LOL

**mauleed**

Mughi, a pod is certainly immobile at the end of the game (and the beginning and middle).

That is the only requirement for a vehicle giving up 1/2 its VPs. There's no ambiguity on this point, and I can't imagine why you'd think they need an FAQ to simply repeat what the book already says.

**happypants**

Hey Ed, I don't think that anyone is argueing whether a pod is immobile at the end of the game (or beginning or middle)

I think that the point is that if you give up 1/2 vp's for a pod for being without it taking an immobile hit to it, that opens up a can of worms about stunned vehicles being immobile at the end of the game.

**mauleed**

The stunned vehicle is immobile argument (which is ridiculous on it's face) has no relevance here regardless.

Again, it's exactly this simple:

1. Drop pods are always immobile.

2. Any vehicle that is immobile and not a wreck at the end of the game gives up half it's VPs.

Conclusion: drop pods always give up half their VPs.

I don't see how this is confusing to anyone.

**happypants**

I actually have to agree with you on this one because they are defined as immobile in the SM Codex.

**Antonin**

Posted By mughi3 on 06/18/2006 5:30 PM

a drop turret, drop pod or other normally immobile unit would not give up VP unless it took damage, unless GW has noted otherwise in some FAQ

Like, oh, say, the Spanish FAQs? (and the rules, as pointed out by other people)
i have a friend who does an elysian drop army with sentry turrets if we went by your interpretation he would loose a third of his army just by showing up on the table.

Poor guy.

**mughi3**

Posted By mauleed on 06/19/2006 4:37 AM

Mughi, a pod is certainly immobile at the end of the game (and the beginning and middle).

That is the only requirement for a vehicle giving up 1/2 its VPs. There's no ambiguity on this point, and I can't imagine why you'd think they need an FAQ to simply repeat what the book already says.

unfortunattely there is a falacy in your argument. on this subject the core rulebook only covers certain vehicle types all of which are otherwise mobile and can be immobilized by damage (all the wording and references are in this manner), thus giving up half victory points. there is no reference to any kind of vehicle or vehicle unit that is naturally immobile and thus it needs to be addressed.

i have one drop pod and 15 points in a deathwing army is not a big deal, but for example my friend who takes the IG drop doctrine uses 3 squads of 3 dropping TLLC sentry turrets for his heavy support. now were talking units that are into the triple digits in points. it doesn't seem reasonable that he would loose 1 1/2 of his heavy support units in points just by showing up on the table.

**snooggums**

Posted By mughi3 on 06/19/2006 10:31 AM

there is no reference to any kind of vehicle or vehicle unit that is naturally immobile and thus it needs to be addressed.

It's been posted several times that drop pods are listed as immobile in their codex entry. If you find this to be false please post so.