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.

rigeld2 wrote:

alex567 wrote:
I read the faq to read, "the unit sufferes an Immobilised result including losing 1 hull point" as in, in addition to losing 1 hull point the vehicle is Immobilised.

My viewpoint.

The rest of us understand the difference between "in addition" and "including".

And some of us understand specific verses general.

When I tell someone who lost a bet to take off their clothes, including their underwear.

That doesn't mean that every time someone takes their clothes off they must take off their underwear.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. We know that because of the definitions of "including" vs "in addition".

Rorschash - that isnt a qualifier to the "including" portion. It strictly is acting as a reminder that HP loss is part of an immobilised damage result. If you disagree please show where these different immobilised results are defined.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rorschash - that isnt a qualifier to the "including" portion. It strictly is acting as a reminder that HP loss is part of an immobilised damage result. If you disagree please show where these different immobilised results are defined.

Its not an immobilised result, the FAQ states if for DT failed test, it is in relation to DT only. People are assuming the link between link between immobilised and hull point loss based on the DT failed test FAQ and the fact the other immobilised result earned by rolling on the table, I understand what you mean but it isnt clear hence why they are assuming.

No, it IS an immobilised result - it states that with no ambiguity. It states that an immobilised result INCLUDES a hull point loss

"As a result of a failed DT test" is not a qualifier in the scope "immobilised result", unless you are statring there is more than one type of immobilised result. If you are stating that, prove it, otherwise they have stated PLAINLY that an immobilsied result MUST include a HP loss. If you apply an immobilised result without including a HP loss, you have not followed this rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it IS an immobilised result - it states that with no ambiguity. It states that an immobilised result INCLUDES a hull point loss

"As a result of a failed DT test" is not a qualifier in the scope "immobilised result", unless you are statring there is more than one type of immobilised result. If you are stating that, prove it, otherwise they have stated PLAINLY that an immobilsied result MUST include a HP loss. If you apply an immobilised result without including a HP loss, you have not followed this rule.

I am sorry, but it does not state that an immobilised result includes a hullpoint loss.
It states that "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point."

Nowhere in the rules does it say that "Immobilised results include a hullpoint loss!".
Otherwise a penetrate followed by an immobilise would make the target lose TWO hullpoints. That's because the BRB clearly says that you lose an hullpoint ánd roll on the vehicle damage table.

The Vehicle Damage Table clearly says what it means for a vehicle to have suffered an immobilize result and that does not include losing a hullpoint (unless it was already immobilized).

Kangodo wrote:
[Nowhere in the rules does it say that "Immobilised results include a hullpoint loss!".

So, 'including losing a hull point' doesn't actually mean including losing a hull point...?

 insaniak wrote:
So, 'including losing a hull point' doesn't actually mean including losing a hull point...?

It does not mean that an immobilized result always includes a loss of Hullpoint.

Kangodo wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So, 'including losing a hull point' doesn't actually mean including losing a hull point...?

It does not mean that an immobilized result always includes a loss of Hullpoint.

Interesting.

So we know that the Immobilize result referenced in the DT errata includes a hull point loss.
Can you show me where this result is defined?

rigeld2 wrote:
Interesting.

So we know that the Immobilize result referenced in the DT errata includes a hull point loss.
Can you show me where this result is defined?

I'll quote it for you

5. Immobilized.
The vehicle has taken a hit that has crippled a wheel, track, grav plate, jet or leg.
An Immobilized vehicle cannot move - it may not even pivot, but its turret may continue to rotate to select targets, and other weapons retain their normal arcs of fire.
Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or a Flyer with Locked Velocity (see page 81) instead remove remove an additional Hull Point.

Nowhere does this rule say that you lose a Hull Point for being Immobilized.

Penetrating Hits
If a penetrating hit was scored, the vehicle not only loses 1 Hull Point, but also suffers additional damage.
After deducting any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour.
Apply any appropriate modifiers (they are all cumulative) and look up the result using the Vehicle Damage table on the left.
You must roll on the Vehicle Damage table even if the vehicle loses sufficient Hull Points to be Wrecked, as there is still a chance that it Explodes!

I mean, I hardly play vehicles and couldn't care.
But if people want Drop Pods to suffer a Hull Point, that means an Immobilized vehicle would suffer 3 Hull Points, whereas a normal Vehicle would get 2.
1. Because of the penetrate.
2. Because apparently it is included with Immobilized (REALLY?)
3. Because it was already Immobilized.

No, that can't be the result the DT errata is talking about - because you're saying it doesn't include HP loss. The errata requires it to.

Therefore either
A) all immobs suffer HP loss
B) there's another immob result specific for DT that no one can find a definition for.

Sorry how many immobilised results are there? only one I know of on the vehicle damage chart, care to quote where the other ones are?

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that can't be the result the DT errata is talking about - because you're saying it doesn't include HP loss. The errata requires it to.

Therefore either
A) all immobs suffer HP loss
B) there's another immob result specific for DT that no one can find a definition for.

Or C) The FAQ is there to emphasise that the Immob-result does not overwrite the losing Hull Point from the failed test and you will still lose that HP.

Or even better: D) They are just terrible at rule-writing.
Source - The GW-website:

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

Since this isn't a grey area, the FAQ should not be used.

MarkyMark wrote:
Sorry how many immobilised results are there? only one I know of on the vehicle damage chart, care to quote where the other ones are?

That's my point. Since there's only one and the Errata says it must include a hull point loss...

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that can't be the result the DT errata is talking about - because you're saying it doesn't include HP loss. The errata requires it to.

Therefore either
A) all immobs suffer HP loss
B) there's another immob result specific for DT that no one can find a definition for.

What do you mean? You roll for a DT test, you fail, your immobilized which in this specific case includes a hull point loss. Other cases of immobilisation do not include a hull point loss but follow on from a hull point loss, a penetrating hit does not always include an immobilisation but has a specific stipulation that you must roll on the damage result table which could result in immobilisation. That does not mean that all immobilisation must include a hull point loss unless you can find somewhere in the BRB that shows "all immobilised results include a hull point loss" and don't say "'including losing a hull point" without "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test", it's just a statement out of context then.

If you roll with immobilisation includes a hull point loss then you'll have to roll with A) all immobs suffer HP loss, otherwise it's just like saying "immobilisation includes a hull point loss except when the hull point loss comes before hand." A penetrating hit comes with a hull point loss and that's done at a separate stage to the damage results roll.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that can't be the result the DT errata is talking about - because you're saying it doesn't include HP loss. The errata requires it to.

Therefore either
A) all immobs suffer HP loss
B) there's another immob result specific for DT that no one can find a definition for.

Or C) The FAQ is there to emphasise that the Immob-result does not overwrite the losing Hull Point from the failed test and you will still lose that HP.

You mean errata of course. And isn't that the point that you're disagreeing with?

Or even better: D) They are just terrible at rule-writing.
Source - The GW-website:

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

Since this isn't a grey area, the FAQ should not be used.

Bzzzt. Read the tenets. FAQs and errata are perfectly valid official sources. And saying this isnt a grey area after 8 pages is amusing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mantel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that can't be the result the DT errata is talking about - because you're saying it doesn't include HP loss. The errata requires it to.

Therefore either
A) all immobs suffer HP loss
B) there's another immob result specific for DT that no one can find a definition for.

What do you mean? You roll for a DT test, you fail, your immobilized which in this specific case includes a hull point loss. Other cases of immobilisation do not include a hull point loss but follow on from a hull point loss, a penetrating hit does not always include an immobilisation but has a specific stipulation that you must roll on the damage result table which could result in immobilisation. That does not mean that all immobilisation must include a hull point loss unless you can find somewhere in the BRB that shows "all immobilised results include a hull point loss" and don't say "'including losing a hull point" without "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test", it's just a statement out of context then.

If you roll with immobilisation includes a hull point loss then you'll have to roll with A) all immobs suffer HP loss, otherwise it's just like saying "immobilisation includes a hull point loss except when the hull point loss comes before hand." A penetrating hit comes with a hull point loss and that's done at a separate stage to the damage results roll.

I've already explained why your second paragraph is false.

And it's not a statement out of context. Unless you can prove that the Immobilize from a DT test is somehow different from the result on the table, they're identical. And if one includes something, the other must as well (since they're identical).

rigeld2 wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Sorry how many immobilised results are there? only one I know of on the vehicle damage chart, care to quote where the other ones are?

That's my point. Since there's only one and the Errata says it must include a hull point loss...

Only in regards to failing a DT, which is not the only way to be immobilised.

MarkyMark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Sorry how many immobilised results are there? only one I know of on the vehicle damage chart, care to quote where the other ones are?

That's my point. Since there's only one and the Errata says it must include a hull point loss...

Only in regards to failing a DT, which is not the only way to be immobilised.

Which isnt what was asked. We asked, 4 or more times now, to show us where these two (or more) types of immobilised result are. Not the "HOW" but the result of being immobilised.

You are told that an immobilised result includes a hull point loss (ignoring those who say it doesnt, this is basic English they are ignoring)

Now, either this includes ALL immobilised results - because there is only ONE immobilised result defined in the BRB, they must all be the same, OR there is more than one immobilised result that it is possible to receive

THe only way to claim that you do not lose a hull point is to assert that there is more than one "immobilised result" available. If you are stating that, you MUST provide proof of such. As you are unable to do so - and we cannopt prove a negative, so really you MUST provide positve proof that this thing exists - then there is only ONE immobilised result

And, we know from the FAQ that an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point as a part of the result (effect) of being immobilised

Dont ignore the word "including", as it is very, very powerful. It means that an imobilised result contains / is acoompanied by / etc a hullpoint being lost, every single time.

rigeld2 wrote:
You mean errata of course. And isn't that the point that you're disagreeing with?

My point is that landing a Drop Pod will not cause a Hull Point loss since an Immobilized result does not make you lose a Hull Point.

rigeld2 wrote:
And it's not a statement out of context. Unless you can prove that the Immobilize from a DT test is somehow different from the result on the table, they're identical. And if one includes something, the other must as well (since they're identical).

"A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point."
Unless people quoted it wrong, that is the errata.
Yes, the "including losing one HP" could reference to the Immobilized result.
But that would contradict many other rules and result into what I said before: Pen + Immobilized = 2 HP loss.

It can also apply to failing the DT-test, which makes more sense.
Non-Vehicles that fail a DT-test, suffer a wound.
The BRB says that Vehicles get Immobilized.
So people were asking: "Doesn't the vehicle get a wound? (or in their case a HP-loss)"
And that's why we got the errata to say that failing a DT-test gives vehicles a HP-loss.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which isnt what was asked. We asked, 4 or more times now, to show us where these two (or more) types of immobilised result are. Not the "HOW" but the result of being immobilised.

There is only one type of Immobilized, correct.
And the description of that is stated within the Vehicle Damage-table.
It's where the Index sends us to if we want to know what it does.

You are told that an immobilised result includes a hull point loss (ignoring those who say it doesnt, this is basic English they are ignoring)

That's hardly constructive: "People who disagree are bad at English!"

And, we know from the FAQ that an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point as a part of the result (effect) of being immobilised

I disagree and say that the sentence says that "failing a Dangerous Terrain test" includes the loss of a Hull Point.

PS. I make a post. You quote me.
I quote you and it shows my original quote too. Is there an option to turn that off by default? It's annoying.

rigeld2 wrote:
I've already explained why your second paragraph is false.

Do you mean

rigeld2 wrote:If you roll on the pen chart, you've already suffered a HP damage and therefore the HP is included.

? The damage results table is additional damage, it doesn't include any HP loss, it is in addition to the penetrating hit which causes the HP loss. The HP loss isn't included in the damage result but rather the other way around. The damage result is included with the penetrating hit and the penetrating hit is the sole cause of the HP loss not the damage table result. Two separate results from the initial action being grouped under one action, the penetrating hit.

rigeld2 wrote:
And it's not a statement out of context. Unless you can prove that the Immobilize from a DT test is somehow different from the result on the table, they're identical. And if one includes something, the other must as well (since they're identical).

It is taken out of context, the FAQ is fairly clear that it's specific to DT tests, why are you dropping that part out each time? It seems fairly important. In the instance of "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test" immobilisation includes the loss of HP. They don't make any changes to the immobilisation result to include this HP loss outside of this DT test, nor do they change the order in which damage is assigned with a penetrating hit, HP loss first then additional damage from the damage chart. It is simply an additional danger to taking a shortcut through, or landing on, DT.

A Drop Pod that comes onto the table is not immobilized already and so the the immobilized result does not stack, it states in the rule book that a vehicle only losses a HP if the vehicle is already immobilized and rolls a 5 on the chart.

Kangodo - then you are not parsing the sentence correctly. "Including ..." is owned by the "immobilised result" subject. Basic parsing there.

Ther is only one result, and we know that the result includes the loss of a hull point. So your argument that it doesnt include a hull point loss is just "i disagree", with no argument left.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kangodo - then you are not parsing the sentence correctly. "Including ..." is owned by the "immobilised result" subject. Basic parsing there.

Ther is only one result, and we know that the result includes the loss of a hull point. So your argument that it doesnt include a hull point loss is just "i disagree", with no argument left.

No, my argument is that the loss of Hull Point is included in failing the Dangerous Terrain-test, not in the suffering of an Immobilized result.
What you keep on saying is: "No, it's included in the Immob-result. Basic English, learn it!"
And I can assure you that both my English and parsing is perfectly fine.

But let me ask you one question:
I have a Land Raider.
Someone fires a Lascannon (STR9 - AP2).
He hits. He penetrates.
He rolls a 4, adds 1 and my Land Raider is Immobilized!

How many Hull Points does my Land Raider lose?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kangodo - then you are not parsing the sentence correctly. "Including ..." is owned by the "immobilised result" subject. Basic parsing there.

Ther is only one result, and we know that the result includes the loss of a hull point. So your argument that it doesnt include a hull point loss is just "i disagree", with no argument left.

If we take that phrase in isolation you're correct but "suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point” is owned by "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test" This limits the second half of the statement to a particular unit, a vehicle, and further refines it to a particular scenario, a DT test.

So you are saying that the immobilised result that is the result of a failed DT test is a DIFFERENT immobilised result to that of another cause?

Prove there are 2 different immobilised results. Page and para.

(hint - you are making the same argument as we have no w asked fore proof of 5 times previously, so please do so)

Kangodo - go back about 2 pages, already answered that. You have yet to actually prove your case, that the ownership of "including..." is NOT the immobilised result. Your parsing is entirely incorrect if you say the owner is the DT failure. Just flat out wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you are saying that the immobilised result that is the result of a failed DT test is a DIFFERENT immobilised result to that of another cause?

Prove there are 2 different immobilised results. Page and para.

(hint - you are making the same argument as we have no w asked fore proof of 5 times previously, so please do so)

No, there is only ONE type of Immobilized result: The one described on the Vehicle Damage-table and this result does not have a loss of Hull Point.
That table is exactly where the proof is, the Vehicle Damage-table tells you exactly what an Immobilized-result means and that does not include the loss of Hull Point.
So you want proof? Open the rulebook, go to index, find Vehicle Damage-table and see that it does not include a HP-loss.

"But the sentence in the errata is saying INCLUDING a loss of Hull Point."
Yes, it does.
And since I have already proven it's not included in the Immobilized-result (See the VD-table) it must mean it's included in the DT-test.

Kangodo - go back about 2 pages, already answered that. You have yet to actually prove your case, that the ownership of "including..." is NOT the immobilised result. Your parsing is entirely incorrect if you say the owner is the DT failure. Just flat out wrong.

You haven't answered that question in this thread.
So let's try again: A simple numbers-question that should be answered by 1, 2 or 3.
How many Hull Points does my Land Raider lose if it gets hit by a Lascannon that results into a penetrate followed by "Immobilized" on the Vehicle Damage-table?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you are saying that the immobilised result that is the result of a failed DT test is a DIFFERENT immobilised result to that of another cause?

Prove there are 2 different immobilised results. Page and para.

(hint - you are making the same argument as we have no w asked fore proof of 5 times previously, so please do so)

Kangodo - go back about 2 pages, already answered that. You have yet to actually prove your case, that the ownership of "including..." is NOT the immobilised result. Your parsing is entirely incorrect if you say the owner is the DT failure. Just flat out wrong.

You are making the claim that there is a separate immobilised result, you are holding up a strawman which is issuing this statement and asking us to prove something that cannot be proved. Immobilised is immobilised and in the case of a DT test it includes a HP loss. In the case of one specific scenario, which is specifically cited in the sentence, a failed DT test, the immobilised result includes a HP loss. The full statement is not a game-wide one, it applies to one specific test that happens at one specific time, the DT test. If you insist that "Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point" is a statement all on it's own please explain why "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test" needs to be discarded and not considered at all.

"including losing one Hull Point" IS owned by immobilised, the word immobilised not the rule, if you expand the sentence to it's full length you'll find that immobilised is owned by the vehicle that has failed the DT test.

Mantel - meaning that the DT-immobilsed result is a special result, separate to the normal immobilised result

Why can it be discarded? Because it does not act as a qualifier to the following sentence fragment, unless you are correct and it has created a special, unique immobilised result.

SO which is it? There is a special, unique immobilised result, or there is just the one?

Kangodo - wrong, I have answered the multiple HP question before. Not your specific one, as it is irrelevant, but in general. Found any proof that "including..." is owned by the DT test failure yet? English says no, but you must have something to back up your assertion?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
SO which is it? There is a special, unique immobilised result, or there is just the one?

There is one unique immobilized result, nothing else.

Kangodo - wrong, I have answered the multiple HP question before. Not your specific one, as it is irrelevant, but in general. Found any proof that "including..." is owned by the DT test failure yet? English says no, but you must have something to back up your assertion?

Why the hell is it irrelevant?
It has everything to do with this discussion.
So are you going to answer it or will you continue to troll everyone?
It's ONE simple question: How much HP will be Land Raider lose in that scenario? One, two, three or more?

And no, English does not say anything like that.
I've also given you the proof, but I will do it again because I am actually trying to have a discussion instead of annoying people.

A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point.
We have a bold, an underlined and italicized part!
The question is: What part does the italicized part refer to?
underlined: The Vehicle Damage-table had no errata and does not mention a HP-loss anywhere.
bold: This piece is about Dangerous Terrain (which was errata'd with the line we are talking about).

The only logical conclusion would be that the loss of HP directly refers to losing a DT-test.

And now answer the question, please..

nosferatu1001 wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Sorry how many immobilised results are there? only one I know of on the vehicle damage chart, care to quote where the other ones are?

That's my point. Since there's only one and the Errata says it must include a hull point loss...

Only in regards to failing a DT, which is not the only way to be immobilised.

Which isnt what was asked. We asked, 4 or more times now, to show us where these two (or more) types of immobilised result are. Not the "HOW" but the result of being immobilised.

You are told that an immobilised result includes a hull point loss (ignoring those who say it doesnt, this is basic English they are ignoring)

Now, either this includes ALL immobilised results - because there is only ONE immobilised result defined in the BRB, they must all be the same, OR there is more than one immobilised result that it is possible to receive

THe only way to claim that you do not lose a hull point is to assert that there is more than one "immobilised result" available. If you are stating that, you MUST provide proof of such. As you are unable to do so - and we cannopt prove a negative, so really you MUST provide positve proof that this thing exists - then there is only ONE immobilised result

And, we know from the FAQ that an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point as a part of the result (effect) of being immobilised

Dont ignore the word "including", as it is very, very powerful. It means that an imobilised result contains / is acoompanied by / etc a hullpoint being lost, every single time.

It says for DT tests, doesnt mention anything else. There is one immobilised result, its on the table as has been said before the only way to get a immobilised result and hull point loss is from failing a Dangerous test and have a pen and score 5 on the table.

Just because the immobilised result includes a hull point for failing DT it does not mean anything else immobilised MUST have a hull point loss, which is what you are doing.

The immobilised result is on the vehicle damage chart, look it up, no mention of hull points other to say a vehicle already immobilised which gets immobilised again takes another HP off.