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.

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

Ok... why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treat it as *damaged*?! I am sure you are paraphrasing because if there was an entry that said "treat the drop pod as damaged." there wouldn't be any discussion about it....

copper.talos wrote:
Treat it as *damaged*?! I am sure you are paraphrasing because if there was an entry that said "treat the drop pod as damaged." there wouldn't be any discussion about it....

Not a paraphrase at all, the actual wording is

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

Important bit underlined.

WhoopieMonster wrote:

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

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

They must be the same result. A) the DTT errata references a damage result. B) without referencing the Damage Result table we have no idea what is meant by immobilized.

If you're still insisting that the DTT Immobilize is different from the pen result immobilize, what happens if you fail a DTT, get shot, penned, and your opponent rolls a 5?

My point on this is, we have some different kinds of "immobilized"-result + additions here:

1. "Immobilized" from a penetrating hit. That means losing a hullpoint from the pen and not being able to move/turn for the rest of the game as well as losing an extra hullpoint in case of already immobilized.

2. "Immobilized" by failed dangerous terrain test. That means exactly the same as the second part of 1. The loss of a hp is included then by the FAQ

3. Now we have a drop pod "immobilized" result, which is like the second part of 1. again, but in addition it cannot be repaired

@Rigeld

you state that the "immobilized"-result from "permanently immobilized" is necessarily connected with a lost hp because the FAQ for failed dangerous terrain tests includes it in that case?

Then I have two things that must be true as well following your logic:

1. An "immobilized"-result from a penetrating hit must necessarily lead to a loss of 2 hullpoints since we would have one from the pen and one from the result. If a vehicle is already immobilized it would then suffer -3 hullpoints.

2. Since the drop pod "immobilized result" should be treated exactly like any others, can we assume then, that no immobilized result ever can be repaired?


I would not imply things and draw conclusions that lead into absurdity. Yes it can be meant like what you said, but it stands nowhere that an "immobilized"-result is connected with a lost hp per se. A failed dangerous terrain-"immobilized"-result yes because the FAQ says so. But apart from that: No.

So the instant it enters play, it counts as a vehicle that "has suffered an immobilised damage result" (past tense).

The way I read this is it was immobilised before it entered play. It enters play with 3 HP and counts as a vehicle that has already had the damage result resolved.

I dunno, sounds really simple to me. It was built immobile so its not like it's making itself immobile upon landing.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
@Rigeld

you state that the "immobilized"-result from "permanently immobilized" is necessarily connected with a lost hp because the FAQ for failed dangerous terrain tests includes it in that case?

Then I have two things that must be true as well following your logic:

1. An "immobilized"-result from a penetrating hit must necessarily lead to a loss of 2 hullpoints since we would have one from the pen and one from the result. If a vehicle is already immobilized it would then suffer -3 hullpoints.

Not true. The Immobilized from a pen result comes with a hull point loss already. You cannot suffer an immobilized from a pen result without suffering a hull point loss.
You cannot suffer an immobilized from a DTT without suffering a hull point loss.
They're both specifically called out as damage results.
The Drop Pod rules apply an Immobilized Damage Result - and somehow it doesn't come with a hull point loss?

How is the immobilized result special? I don't see any rules making it special (aside from being unable to be repaired, which has nothing to do with hull point loss).

2. Since the drop pod "immobilized result" should be treated exactly like any others, can we assume then, that no immobilized result ever can be repaired?

No. The fact that it's specifically called out as being unable to be repaired proves that in that way it's a special case.

rigeld2, you are completely ignoring the fact the Rule Book states a penetrating hit causes you to lose 1 HP and then you role on the damage table. They are two seperate events related by the causality just like DT test failure. You fail a DT test, you become immobilized and you lose a HP.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
rigeld2, you are completely ignoring the fact the Rule Book states a penetrating hit causes you to lose 1 HP and then you role on the damage table. They are two seperate events related by the causality just like DT test failure. You fail a DT test, you become immobilized and you lose a HP.

So what you're saying is that the immobilize on the damage chart is different from the one referenced in the DT test errata.
That's interesting. Pray, tell me where the rules are for the immobilize in the DT test errata?

You are stating an immobilized result directly causes you to lose 1 HP. Correct?

I am telling you the pen hit causes you to lose 1 HP. Then you role on the damage chart. As described in the Rule Book.

If we follow your line of reasoning you will lose 2 HP for ever pen hit that results in a 5. You cannot state the HP is already accounted for when they are seperate events.

Pen hit is Action A, damage chart role is Action B.

You do action A (Which we know does 1 HP damage, as stated in the Rule Book)

Then you do action B (Roll on the damage chart), which you are stating causes HP damage.

The FAQ has an addition to the normal rule, which is perfectly acceptable. The FAQ does not change the damage chart in any way shape or form.

Not true. The Immobilized from a pen result comes with a hull point loss already. You cannot suffer an immobilized from a pen result without suffering a hull point loss.
You cannot suffer an immobilized from a DTT without suffering a hull point loss.
They're both specifically called out as damage results.
The Drop Pod rules apply an Immobilized Damage Result - and somehow it doesn't come with a hull point loss?

How is the immobilized result special? I don't see any rules making it special (aside from being unable to be repaired, which has nothing to do with hull point loss).

But the way you put it is wrong as well. You state that an immobilized result is automatically connected to a penetrating hit, which is said nowhere. It is just nonsense.
In every other case, my argument is perfectly correct.

And the fact that a drop pod immobilized result cannot be repaired has the same value as the hullpoint loss on the failed dtt immobilized result. What am I saying?

Yes, all 3 are different:

1. (Pen-result) pen (= -1hp)+immobilized (cant move or turn+ -1hp if already immobilized)
2. (failed dtt result) immobilized (cant move or turn+ -1hp if already immobilized) + (-1hp as stated by FAQ)
3. (drop pod rule) immobilized (cant move or turn+ -1hp if already immobilized) + cannot be repaired

It never said that the lost HP from a failed DTT comes from a pen, which is therefore an invention. It only states that it is included into the damage result in case a dangerous terrain test is failed. To include it into the result from the pod rule as well is a conclusion that is not valid.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
2. (failed dtt result) immobilized (cant move or turn+ -1hp if already immobilized) + (-1hp as stated by FAQ)

It's not "+". It's included. It's not an additional thing, it's part of the damage result.
If you're treating it as a different damage result I'd like to know what the definition of Immobilised (DTT Errata reference) is.

rigeld2, can you please address my point in post 66. As your stance will cause 2 hp of damage for every 5 rolled on a pen hit.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
rigeld2, can you please address my point in post 66. As your stance will cause 2 hp of damage for every 5 rolled on a pen hit.

I have addressed it.
The pen roll isn't a separate action from the pen hull point. It's included - you cannot hull point damage without rolling on the table. It's literally not possible.
If they were separate it would be possible and you'd have a point.

Glancing hit does a HP damage without rolling on the table.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
Glancing hit does a HP damage without rolling on the table.

That's not what I said.

I said you can't get a damage result without also having a hull point damage. It's literally impossible.
The DTT Errata says that the hull point is included in the damage result.
The Drop Pod counts as suffering from the damage result.

No, you said "you cannot hull point damage without rolling on the table". Glancing hits do exactly that.

Read the rules for penetrating hits. They say you do 1 HP damage and you roll on the damage table. They do not say roll on the damage table and add 1 HP of damage to the result.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
No, you said "you cannot hull point damage without rolling on the table". Glancing hits do exactly that.

You're right, that's what I said. I apologize for the confusing statement.
I meant if you get a pen, you can't just stop at the hull point damage. You will roll on the damage table.

Read the rules for penetrating hits. They say you do 1 HP damage and you roll on the damage table. They do not say roll on the damage table and add 1 HP of damage to the result.

I agree. You cannot separate the two. They are not two separate distinct events. If you suffer a penetrating hit you also suffer a roll on the damage table. You can't suffer one without the other.

Of course the pen -1hp is not connected with the immobilized result.

The procedure is:

1. lose one hp
2. roll on the table

so the -1hp is necessary, the immobilized is not, since there can be another result as well.

Yes in case of shooting there must be a pen to achieve an immobilized result but that doesnt make the loss of the hp part of the result.

Now the FAQ refers to the damage table and includes a -1hp that hasnt been there before so we have 2 possibilities:

1. They "forgot" to write a -1hp for the immobilized result on the damage result table to make it possible to include it, then it also has to be applied in case of a pen (which means -2hp one from pen and one from result) and as well in case of a drop pod deploying.
2. This inclusion is only in case of a failed dtt. so in no other cases the result includes -1hp and is just applied by book.

If you wish, I can quote the "immobilized" damage result from the vehicle damage table. But I think I don't have to and we can all agree that there is no -1hp in there.

Remember: specific over general doesnt mean specific becomes general...

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
Of course the pen -1hp is not connected with the immobilized result.

I said damage result.

Remember: specific over general doesnt mean specific becomes general...

Are you even understanding what I'm trying to argue?

Right, but the Drop Pod hasn't suffered a penetrating hit, nor has it fallen foul of a failed DT test. But you clearly can suffer one without the other as shown with a Glancing hit.

Don't worry about your typo, we all do it.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
Right, but the Drop Pod hasn't suffered a penetrating hit, nor has it fallen foul of a failed DT test. But you clearly can suffer one without the other as shown with a Glancing hit.

No. You can suffer a Hull Point loss without a damage result.
There's no way to suffer a damage result without a hull point loss.

Until the new FAQ comes out

It doesn't enter play and suffer an immobilise damage result. It enters play and counts as a vehicle that "has suffered" a damage result. So how do you suffer a damage result, then enter play, and then lose a hull point?

@Rigeld2

yeah I can understand what you mean, but its very weird.

Your argueing is (from my understanding):

1. if you pen, you necessarily have a damage result so generally -1hp and a damage result is connected
2. the FAQ states that an immobilized result from the damage table includes -1hp in case of a failed dtt

So the conclusion you draw is, that if it is included in the immobilized result on the damage table in case of a failed dtt it means that the connection between a pen and being immobilized must be made backwards as well since there is the only reference for a -1hp given in the book. Therefore it must necessarily mean that any immobilized result comes with -1hp because a failed dtt immobilized result must necessarily be the same as every other. Am I correct?

If I am, I cannot follow this logic. The vehicle damage chart (which is what the FAQ is clearly referring to) is a box in the rulebook. And "immobilized" is part of the box. -1hp is not. So -1hp is not included in "immobilized" per se. But in case of a failed dtt -1hp must be included (and I can find a definition of that: 1. To take in as a part, element, or member.
2. To contain as a secondary or subordinate element.
3. To consider with or place into a group, class, or total: and the bolded parts of definition 1 and 3 can be seen as additive as I see it) into the result.

But that doesnt mean it is always part of the result.

And that is what I mean specific doesnt become general. I hope you understand me now.

Edited by insaniak

there is a difference between being immobilized and being hit and immobilized.

The penetration of your armor or glancing of your armor causes the hull damage not the immobilize result.

Remember that the result is an after effect of what the hit has caused. Thus why it's called immobilize"result". Things don't magically become immobalized on there own unless they start that way ie. A DROP POD

It's very much an in addition effect and only takes place after the initial effect has happened.

You have to read things in chronological order in the 20th century.