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.

Spindlehuren wrote:
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?

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 that cannot be repaired in any
way

Counts as must mean the same thing as is.

Just to be clear, if you argue that Drop Pods lose 1 HP when they land since they are immobile, you would also have to ANY vehicle that recieves a penetrating hit and then suffers the immobilized result would lose a total of 2 HP and suffer from immobilized. To quote the Rulebook on penetrating hits "If a penetrating hit was scored, the vehicle does not only lose a hull point, but it suffers additional damage. The wording of the FAQ says "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”, which implies that the loss of a hull point is a feature of the immobilized damage result. Thus, a penetrating hit which immobilizes would therefore, via distributive property, cause 2 HP worth of damage plus the immobilized result. The alternative is that the loss of a hull point is a property of the failed dangerous terrain test, which means that vehicles only suffer 1HP when hit by a penetrating hit with immobilized rolled, but they still lose a HP when they fail the dangerous terrain test.

Or, of course, you could read the rules for Immobile in the Drop Pod entry (source, Codex: Space Marines, 5th Edition, 2009). The rule states that after landing, the drop pod counts as a vehicle that HAS suffered an immobilized result. It doesn't suffer an immobilized result once it shows up, it simply acts as if it already had it before it deployed. It doesn't actually suffer an immobilized damage result, it just acts as if it already has one, and thus even if you accept that losing a hull point is a property of the immobilized result, the drop pod would not lose the hull point.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
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?

Essentially yes.

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

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

Show me a way (outside of the Drop Pod rules because you can't use the thing we're arguing about to draw a conclusion for the argument) to suffer an immobilized result without suffering a hull point.
Heck, I'll settle for any damage result. I'm honestly curious here.

I can't think of one. Which means it's not possible to separate the two.
The DTT Errata supports this by not marking the "including" as any kind of outlier - it's just included.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RegalPhantom wrote:
Just to be clear, if you argue that Drop Pods lose 1 HP when they land since they are immobile, you would also have to ANY vehicle that recieves a penetrating hit and then suffers the immobilized result would lose a total of 2 HP and suffer from immobilized. To quote the Rulebook on penetrating hits "If a penetrating hit was scored, the vehicle does not only lose a hull point, but it suffers additional damage. The wording of the FAQ says "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”, which implies that the loss of a hull point is a feature of the immobilized damage result. Thus, a penetrating hit which immobilizes would therefore, via distributive property, cause 2 HP worth of damage plus the immobilized result. The alternative is that the loss of a hull point is a property of the failed dangerous terrain test, which means that vehicles only suffer 1HP when hit by a penetrating hit with immobilized rolled, but they still lose a HP when they fail the dangerous terrain test.

It'd be great if you could read the thread.

Or, of course, you could read the rules for Immobile in the Drop Pod entry (source, Codex: Space Marines, 5th Edition, 2009). The rule states that after landing, the drop pod counts as a vehicle that HAS suffered an immobilized result. It doesn't suffer an immobilized result once it shows up, it simply acts as if it already had it before it deployed. It doesn't actually suffer an immobilized damage result, it just acts as if it already has one, and thus even if you accept that losing a hull point is a property of the immobilized result, the drop pod would not lose the hull point.

Read the BT FAQ/Errata. If you think it doesn't apply to all drop pods you're fooling yourself.

I'm kind of appalled that there's a discussion about this. That by just existing in the game, a drop pod loses a hull point because it counts as immobile. This isn't the worst rules lawyering I've ever seen, but it's up there.

rigeld2 wrote:
Show me a way (outside of the Drop Pod rules because you can't use the thing we're arguing about to draw a conclusion for the argument) to suffer an immobilized result without suffering a hull point.
Heck, I'll settle for any damage result. I'm honestly curious here.

I can't think of one. Which means it's not possible to separate the two.

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

There you go. The FAQ says it counts as immobilized, nothing more. I'm going to argue that you don't have permission to lose a hull point unless you take a glancing or penetrating hit, since there's no other way to lose a hull point. That is, unless you can show me a way to lose a hull point without suffering a glancing or penetrating hit.

rigeld2 wrote:
Show me a way (outside of the Drop Pod rules because you can't use the thing we're arguing about to draw a conclusion for the argument) to suffer an immobilized result without suffering a hull point.
Heck, I'll settle for any damage result. I'm honestly curious here.

At work and away from books (obviously), don't Thunder Hammers cause a Crew Shaken result whenever they hit a vehicle?

 beigeknight wrote:
I'm kind of appalled that there's a discussion about this. That by just existing in the game, a drop pod loses a hull point because it counts as immobile. This isn't the worst rules lawyering I've ever seen, but it's up there.

rigeld2 wrote:
Show me a way (outside of the Drop Pod rules because you can't use the thing we're arguing about to draw a conclusion for the argument) to suffer an immobilized result without suffering a hull point.
Heck, I'll settle for any damage result. I'm honestly curious here.

I can't think of one. Which means it's not possible to separate the two.

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

There you go. The FAQ says it counts as immobilized, nothing more. I'm going to argue that you don't have permission to lose a hull point unless you take a glancing or penetrating hit, since there's no other way to lose a hull point. That is, unless you can show me a way to lose a hull point without suffering a glancing or penetrating hit.

Its like you havent read this thread at all....since you DO lose a hull point for failing a DTT and that is not a glancing or pen hit.

rigeld2 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:
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?

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 that cannot be repaired in any
way

Counts as must mean the same thing as is.

Right...So it comes into play as a vehicle that "has suffered" an immobilize damage result meaning it arrives with an immobilised effect from a previously resolved damage result. So unless it loses a hull point while in reserve, I don't see how it can lose a hull point from entering play at all.

Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Show me a way (outside of the Drop Pod rules because you can't use the thing we're arguing about to draw a conclusion for the argument) to suffer an immobilized result without suffering a hull point.
Heck, I'll settle for any damage result. I'm honestly curious here.

At work and away from books (obviously), don't Thunder Hammers cause a Crew Shaken result whenever they hit a vehicle?

Not anymore. They're just concussive which doesn't do anything special against vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spindlehuren wrote:
Right...So it comes into play as a vehicle that "has suffered" an immobilize damage result meaning it arrives with an immobilised effect from a previously resolved damage result. So unless it loses a hull point while in reserve, I don't see how it can lose a hull point from entering play at all.

It doesn't suffer the damage until after it's entered the battle. Which means when it hits the table. Which isn't in reserve.

 Thanos33 wrote:
removed

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.

First off, insulting the members of the board is not a great way to start your intro into this thread.

Secondly, by your "intelligent" input, then a dangerous terrain test would not cause a hull point loss since no glancing or penetrating hit occurred.

Third - A drop pod does NOT start that way. It is immobilized via a damage result the moment it hits the board, not before.

And you end with another insult. BTW, it's the 21st century. And I left your misspellings in for continuity.

Can we not start throwing insults around, especially in retaliation? I'd like for this thread not to be locked.

davou wrote:

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.

Which means he paraphrased it in a serious way. As you said the wording is about "damage result" not "damaged vehicle". There is a very big difference between those two ie A "crew shaken" is a damage result but the vehicle is never damaged...

rigeld2 wrote:
Can we not start throwing insults around, especially in retaliation? I'd like for this thread not to be locked.

I thought I was much gentler. But, fine...

copper.talos wrote:

davou wrote:

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.

Which means he paraphrased it in a serious way. As you said the wording is about "damage result" not "damaged vehicle". There is a very big difference between those two ie A "crew shaken" is a damage result but the vehicle is never damaged...

But to ge to "crew Shaken" you took a pen hit and loss a hull point so you were damaged....

copper.talos wrote:
Which means he paraphrased it in a serious way. As you said the wording is about "damage result" not "damaged vehicle". There is a very big difference between those two ie A "crew shaken" is a damage result but the vehicle is never damaged...

It counts in all respects as if it had suffered the damage result.
Which means it counts as having suffered damage.
Which means it's a damaged vehicle.

And yes, as far as the rules are concerned, a Crew Shaken result is vehicle damage. edit: And it comes with a hull point loss - so it's actual damage too.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Show me a way (outside of the Drop Pod rules because you can't use the thing we're arguing about to draw a conclusion for the argument) to suffer an immobilized result without suffering a hull point.
Heck, I'll settle for any damage result. I'm honestly curious here.

At work and away from books (obviously), don't Thunder Hammers cause a Crew Shaken result whenever they hit a vehicle?

Not anymore. They're just concussive which doesn't do anything special against vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spindlehuren wrote:
Right...So it comes into play as a vehicle that "has suffered" an immobilize damage result meaning it arrives with an immobilised effect from a previously resolved damage result. So unless it loses a hull point while in reserve, I don't see how it can lose a hull point from entering play at all.

It doesn't suffer the damage until after it's entered the battle. Which means when it hits the table. Which isn't in reserve.

But it doesn't suffer an immobilise result from entering play. It enters play counting as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilise result. That means it comes into play counting as a vehicle that has already been damaged. Prior to coming into play and having the immediate effect of the rule, it was in reserve. It's clear that it comes into play with the immobilise effect but it wasn't damaged while in play and there for it arrives with it's stats which include HP3.

Spindlehuren wrote:
But it doesn't suffer an immobilise result from entering play. It enters play counting as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilise result. That means it comes into play counting as a vehicle that has already been damaged. Prior to coming into play and having the immediate effect of the rule, it was in reserve. It's clear that it comes into play with the immobilise effect but it wasn't damaged while in play and there for it arrives with it's stats which include HP3.

BT FAQ 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 Immobilised damage result that cannot be repaired in any way.

It cannot move once it has entered the battle. Which means it's in play before it's told it cannot move. Which means it's not in reserve.

Spindlehuren wrote:

But it doesn't suffer an immobilise result from entering play. It enters play counting as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilise result. That means it comes into play counting as a vehicle that has already been damaged. Prior to coming into play and having the immediate effect of the rule, it was in reserve. It's clear that it comes into play with the immobilise effect but it wasn't damaged while in play and there for it arrives with it's stats which include HP3.

What part of "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized damage result" discounts taking the hull point loss? For a vehicle to suffer "any" damage result, they must first take a hull point loss and then roll on the chart. The "roll" is fixed so you don't actually roll a die (in the same vain that an automatic hit still rolls to-hit but the outcome of the die doesn't matter).

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

But it doesn't suffer an immobilise result from entering play. It enters play counting as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilise result. That means it comes into play counting as a vehicle that has already been damaged. Prior to coming into play and having the immediate effect of the rule, it was in reserve. It's clear that it comes into play with the immobilise effect but it wasn't damaged while in play and there for it arrives with it's stats which include HP3.

What part of "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized damage result" discounts taking the hull point loss? For a vehicle to suffer "any" damage result, they must first take a hull point loss and then roll on the chart. The "roll" is fixed so you don't actually roll a die (in the same vain that an automatic hit still rolls to-hit but the outcome of the die doesn't matter).

There's nothing being rolled for or resolved. It's coming into play with an already resolved damage result. It comes into play with 3 hull points and there is no effect to be resolved afterwards. The hull point is removed when the effect occurs. If it counts as previously having had an effect occur to it, then there's nothing left to be resolved. If you have a vehicle get penetrated, a hull point is removed and the damage result is rolled and applied. You don't get penetrated, apply the damage result, and then later on in the game remove a hull point (unless you forgot to do it at the time).

Spindlehuren wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

But it doesn't suffer an immobilise result from entering play. It enters play counting as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilise result. That means it comes into play counting as a vehicle that has already been damaged. Prior to coming into play and having the immediate effect of the rule, it was in reserve. It's clear that it comes into play with the immobilise effect but it wasn't damaged while in play and there for it arrives with it's stats which include HP3.

What part of "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized damage result" discounts taking the hull point loss? For a vehicle to suffer "any" damage result, they must first take a hull point loss and then roll on the chart. The "roll" is fixed so you don't actually roll a die (in the same vain that an automatic hit still rolls to-hit but the outcome of the die doesn't matter).

There's nothing being rolled for or resolved. It's coming into play with an already resolved damage result. It comes into play with 3 hull points and there is no effect to be resolved afterwards. The hull point is removed when the effect occurs. If it counts as previously having had an effect occur to it, then there's nothing left to be resolved. If you have a vehicle get penetrated, a hull point is removed and the damage result is rolled and applied. You don't get penetrated, apply the damage result, and then later on in the game remove a hull point (unless you forgot to do it at the time).

Except that there totally is. And no, it does not come into play immobilized, it is immobilized when it enters play. There is a small, but important, difference there. And when it enters play it is not just immobilized, it suffers a vehicle damage result that is automatically chosen as immobilized. So yes, you're resolving vehicle damage on it with predetermined outcomes.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

But it doesn't suffer an immobilise result from entering play. It enters play counting as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilise result. That means it comes into play counting as a vehicle that has already been damaged. Prior to coming into play and having the immediate effect of the rule, it was in reserve. It's clear that it comes into play with the immobilise effect but it wasn't damaged while in play and there for it arrives with it's stats which include HP3.

What part of "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized damage result" discounts taking the hull point loss? For a vehicle to suffer "any" damage result, they must first take a hull point loss and then roll on the chart. The "roll" is fixed so you don't actually roll a die (in the same vain that an automatic hit still rolls to-hit but the outcome of the die doesn't matter).

There's nothing being rolled for or resolved. It's coming into play with an already resolved damage result. It comes into play with 3 hull points and there is no effect to be resolved afterwards. The hull point is removed when the effect occurs. If it counts as previously having had an effect occur to it, then there's nothing left to be resolved. If you have a vehicle get penetrated, a hull point is removed and the damage result is rolled and applied. You don't get penetrated, apply the damage result, and then later on in the game remove a hull point (unless you forgot to do it at the time).

Except that there totally is. And no, it does not come into play immobilized, it is immobilized when it enters play. There is a small, but important, difference there. And when it enters play it is not just immobilized, it suffers a vehicle damage result that is automatically chosen as immobilized. So yes, you're resolving vehicle damage on it with predetermined outcomes.

You're right. It is entering play and having an immobilise effect applied to it. Except the rule that's making this happen specifies the damage result has already occured previously. You are applying the result, but you are not resolving a penetrating hit. Prior to entering play, it was not in play. So no effect is occuring to the pod while it's in play.

beigeknight wrote:That by just existing in the game, a drop pod loses a hull point because it counts as immobile. This isn't the worst rules lawyering I've ever seen, but it's up there.

I'm kind of curious what you thought about drop pods in 4th edition, where they gave up half their points value in victory points simply by landing on the table, for exactly the same reasons.

rigeld2 wrote:I'd like for this thread not to be locked.

I don't know, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.

Spindlehuren wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

But it doesn't suffer an immobilise result from entering play. It enters play counting as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilise result. That means it comes into play counting as a vehicle that has already been damaged. Prior to coming into play and having the immediate effect of the rule, it was in reserve. It's clear that it comes into play with the immobilise effect but it wasn't damaged while in play and there for it arrives with it's stats which include HP3.

What part of "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized damage result" discounts taking the hull point loss? For a vehicle to suffer "any" damage result, they must first take a hull point loss and then roll on the chart. The "roll" is fixed so you don't actually roll a die (in the same vain that an automatic hit still rolls to-hit but the outcome of the die doesn't matter).

There's nothing being rolled for or resolved. It's coming into play with an already resolved damage result. It comes into play with 3 hull points and there is no effect to be resolved afterwards. The hull point is removed when the effect occurs. If it counts as previously having had an effect occur to it, then there's nothing left to be resolved. If you have a vehicle get penetrated, a hull point is removed and the damage result is rolled and applied. You don't get penetrated, apply the damage result, and then later on in the game remove a hull point (unless you forgot to do it at the time).

Except that there totally is. And no, it does not come into play immobilized, it is immobilized when it enters play. There is a small, but important, difference there. And when it enters play it is not just immobilized, it suffers a vehicle damage result that is automatically chosen as immobilized. So yes, you're resolving vehicle damage on it with predetermined outcomes.

You're right. It is entering play and having an immobilise effect applied to it. Except the rule that's making this happen specifies the damage result has already occured previously. You are applying the result, but you are not resolving a penetrating hit.

You're not resolving a penetrating hit against a failed dangerous terrain test either. Honestly, using the "it's not a penetrating hit" argument as a barometer in this situation doesn't work as there is now another situation that doesn't have a penetrating hit that still allocates a hull point loss.

It hasn't occurred previously though, according to this: 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 that cannot be repaired in any
way.

The first part of the sentence is basically what gives you permission to use a drop pod as a deep striker because if it was immobile prior to this it wouldn't be able to enter play ever. The second part of the sentence *must* be in effect after the drop pod has entered play both from a rules perspective and from the way the sentence is written.

Presto wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
I'm kind of appalled that there's a discussion about this. That by just existing in the game, a drop pod loses a hull point because it counts as immobile. This isn't the worst rules lawyering I've ever seen, but it's up there.

rigeld2 wrote:
Show me a way (outside of the Drop Pod rules because you can't use the thing we're arguing about to draw a conclusion for the argument) to suffer an immobilized result without suffering a hull point.
Heck, I'll settle for any damage result. I'm honestly curious here.

I can't think of one. Which means it's not possible to separate the two.

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

There you go. The FAQ says it counts as immobilized, nothing more. I'm going to argue that you don't have permission to lose a hull point unless you take a glancing or penetrating hit, since there's no other way to lose a hull point. That is, unless you can show me a way to lose a hull point without suffering a glancing or penetrating hit.

Its like you havent read this thread at all....since you DO lose a hull point for failing a DTT and that is not a glancing or pen hit.

I skimmed it, so I'll give you that one. However, if a drop pod does not fail a DTT or does not suffer a glancing or pen hit then there's still no permission to remove a hull point. Does that make sense?

 beigeknight wrote:
I skimmed it, so I'll give you that one. However, if a drop pod does not fail a DTT or does not suffer a glancing or pen hit then there's still no permission to remove a hull point. Does that make sense?

Please read the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spindlehuren wrote:
You're right. It is entering play and having an immobilise effect applied to it. Except the rule that's making this happen specifies the damage result has already occured previously. You are applying the result, but you are not resolving a penetrating hit. Prior to entering play, it was not in play. So no effect is occuring to the pod while it's in play.

BT Errata 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 Immobilised damage result that cannot be repaired in any
way.

Where do you get that it happened in the past IE before it entered play?

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

But it doesn't suffer an immobilise result from entering play. It enters play counting as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilise result. That means it comes into play counting as a vehicle that has already been damaged. Prior to coming into play and having the immediate effect of the rule, it was in reserve. It's clear that it comes into play with the immobilise effect but it wasn't damaged while in play and there for it arrives with it's stats which include HP3.

What part of "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized damage result" discounts taking the hull point loss? For a vehicle to suffer "any" damage result, they must first take a hull point loss and then roll on the chart. The "roll" is fixed so you don't actually roll a die (in the same vain that an automatic hit still rolls to-hit but the outcome of the die doesn't matter).

There's nothing being rolled for or resolved. It's coming into play with an already resolved damage result. It comes into play with 3 hull points and there is no effect to be resolved afterwards. The hull point is removed when the effect occurs. If it counts as previously having had an effect occur to it, then there's nothing left to be resolved. If you have a vehicle get penetrated, a hull point is removed and the damage result is rolled and applied. You don't get penetrated, apply the damage result, and then later on in the game remove a hull point (unless you forgot to do it at the time).

Except that there totally is. And no, it does not come into play immobilized, it is immobilized when it enters play. There is a small, but important, difference there. And when it enters play it is not just immobilized, it suffers a vehicle damage result that is automatically chosen as immobilized. So yes, you're resolving vehicle damage on it with predetermined outcomes.

You're right. It is entering play and having an immobilise effect applied to it. Except the rule that's making this happen specifies the damage result has already occured previously. You are applying the result, but you are not resolving a penetrating hit.

You're not resolving a penetrating hit against a failed dangerous terrain test either. Honestly, using the "it's not a penetrating hit" argument as a barometer in this situation doesn't work as there is now another situation that doesn't have a penetrating hit that still allocates a hull point loss.

It hasn't occurred previously though, according to this: 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 that cannot be repaired in any
way.

The first part of the sentence is basically what gives you permission to use a drop pod as a deep striker because if it was immobile prior to this it wouldn't be able to enter play ever. The second part of the sentence *must* be in effect after the drop pod has entered play both from a rules perspective and from the way the sentence is written.

With a dangerous terrain check, the unit has entered play and now must resolve a dangerous terrain check. It is an effect being resolved once the unit has entered play. The pod enters play has an immobilise applied to it but counted as already having the effect from a previously resolved damage result.

I'm also just using a penetrating hit as an example of an effect to be resolved and not necessarily that this is the case in the situation. Just for the record, even if the rule said it suffers an immobilise damage result when it enters play, I would still take the side that it doesn't lose a hull point.

Spindlehuren wrote:
Just for the record, even if the rule said it suffers an immobilise damage result when it enters play, I would still take the side that it doesn't lose a hull point.

Can you justify it with actual rules?

Spindlehuren wrote:

With a dangerous terrain check, the unit has entered play and now must resolve a dangerous terrain check. It is an effect being resolved once the unit has entered play. The pod enters play has an immobilise applied to it but counted as already having the effect from a previously resolved damage result.

I'm also just using a penetrating hit as an example of an effect to be resolved and not necessarily that this is the case in the situation. Just for the record, even if the rule said it suffers an immobilise damage result when it enters play, I would still take the side that it doesn't lose a hull point.

One could simply say that the deep strike resolution (which is movement) is the effect being resolved prior to the damage result happening. And nowhere does it say the drop pod is counted as being previously immobilized or any such wording, not to be rude but on that front you're just making assumptions.

rigeld2 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:
Just for the record, even if the rule said it suffers an immobilise damage result when it enters play, I would still take the side that it doesn't lose a hull point.

Can you justify it with actual rules?

That's essentially what the thread was debating before I came in. Try to keep up.

Spindlehuren wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:
Just for the record, even if the rule said it suffers an immobilise damage result when it enters play, I would still take the side that it doesn't lose a hull point.

Can you justify it with actual rules?

That's essentially what the thread was debating before I came in. Try to keep up.

Hi. I'm rigeld2. Perhaps you've read my posts in this thread - here's a link to them: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/475709.page?userfilterid=47462
Now, instead throwing out a smartass comment, would you mind posting rules support for why you think that?
Failing that, how about attacking my arguments.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

With a dangerous terrain check, the unit has entered play and now must resolve a dangerous terrain check. It is an effect being resolved once the unit has entered play. The pod enters play has an immobilise applied to it but counted as already having the effect from a previously resolved damage result.

I'm also just using a penetrating hit as an example of an effect to be resolved and not necessarily that this is the case in the situation. Just for the record, even if the rule said it suffers an immobilise damage result when it enters play, I would still take the side that it doesn't lose a hull point.

One could simply say that the deep strike resolution (which is movement) is the effect being resolved prior to the damage result happening. And nowhere does it say the drop pod is counted as being previously immobilized or any such wording, not to be rude but on that front you're just making assumptions.

Counts as a vehicle that "HAS SUFFERED...". Past tense. Once the effect has occured the vehicle "has suffered" from an immobilised result.