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.

The specified loss of one HP and the additional Immobilized result satisfies the conditional bonus HP loss. 1+1+1 = 3. It is pretty clear RAW and I don't know how anyone could read it differently.

I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

By that logic it cannot wreck a vehicle, because it says it loses "a single hull point" and not that it can wreck the vehicle.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

If you're not applying the second Immobilized result you're not reading it as written. What does the BRB tell us happens to Immobilized vehicles that become Immobilized again?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

If you're not applying the second Immobilized result you're not reading it as written. What does the BRB tell us happens to Immobilized vehicles that become Immobilized again?

Profit!

I'm on the side that it's a 2HP loss on additional rolls of a 6.

I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

We are reading as written. We are taking away a single hull point and then the immobilised result forces us to take away an additional Hull Point. Why are you ignoring those rules?

Also if this was back in 5th would you argue that a weapon that simply immobilised on a 6 would not cause weapon destroyed on every 6 after the first?

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? What happens when you get an immobilised result on an immobilised vehicle?

 FlingitNow wrote:
What happens when you get an immobilised result on an immobilised vehicle?

Ooh, ooh, I know this. Pick me, pick me. It uhh...hold on...ummm...oh it...wait, no that's not right...doesn't it...well crap. I thought I knew the answer....

It can move again!
Because it's like when you hit someone and they get amnesia, and if you hit them again they remember everything!

Kangodo wrote:
It can move again!
Because it's like when you hit someone and they get amnesia, and if you hit them again they remember everything!

That's what I thought. But could not remember through my alcohol-infused brain.

Disclaimer: My alcohol-infused brain does not support the vast consumption of delicious alcohols. Persons under the legal drinking age of their country should not drink without adult supervision. Drinking may cause blurred vision and destroy the logic centers of your brain forcing you to lose games of Warhammer 40,000. Please drink irresponsibly. Responsibly, sorry.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

If you're not applying the second Immobilized result you're not reading it as written. What does the BRB tell us happens to Immobilized vehicles that become Immobilized again?

FAQ wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

Is grav a glancing hit? No. No hull point loss for excessive Immobilized results.

Is grav a penetrating hit? No. No hull point loss for excessive Immobilized results.

Is grav an effect that specifies that a hull point is lost? Well, yes. But after you've applied the normal damage from grav, you've already lost your hull point, you're done. The FAQ merely tells us that it is possible to lose hull points through effects that aren't defined as glancing or penetrating hits as long as they specifically call for hull point removal. But the way the majority here reads it, you're basically applying the same hull point loss twice, going against both RAI and RAW, which says that a grav hit removes a single hull point. If it said immobilized plus and additional hull point, you might have had a case. But after you're done applying damage and you're stripped two hull points when the rule says you strip a single one, you're doing something wrong.

As it's written right now, I'd have to throw my lot in with the 3 Hull points group.
(1 hull point & immobilized) + (1 hull point & immobilized on an already immobilized vehicle, which means another hull point) = 3


I'm expecting an FAQ soon to really address the issue. This, alongside grav currently ignoring cover against vehicles, makes them too powerful when compared to plasma weapons of the same cost.
I'll wait before I order any.

That's not what that FAQ says at all.

All it says is that you can suffer one of those effects without additional hull point loss (IE from a drop pod landing).
That FAQ does not say to ignore the rules for immobilize (which is what you're attempting to do).

You misunderstand the FAQ!
The FAQ is there to explain that 1HP + Immobilize does not cause 2 Hull Points.
People used to claim that becoming Immobilized would also cause the loss of a Hull Point.
They actually tried to argue that a Deep Striking Droppod would automatically lose 1 HP because it got immobilized.
That's what the FAQ is for.

Vehicle-DT: "Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or a Flyer with Locked Velocity (pg 81) instead remove an additional Hull Point."
Graviton: "but on a 6, the target suffers an lmmobilised result and loses a single Hull Point."

So it suffers an Immobilized result.
What happens when an Immobilized vehicle suffers ANOTHER Immobilized result? It loses an additional Hull Point.
You'd have a case if Graviton caused the vehicle "to become Immobilized", but not with the current wording.

I think we can drop the pod argument. The SM codex very clearly says the Drop Pod being Immobile does not cause a HP loss.

So whether or not the FAQ was to address the Pod is moot. At least for SM.

Nobody is bringing up that discussion again
The FAQ says no and the new Codex says no!
I just wanted to explain what the FAQ was for. It's to explain that it is an entire different scenario.

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

My advice is to read an entire FAQ before you post it as it destroys your argument. Does an Immobilise result specify you lose an additional Hull Point if you are already immobilised? If so then the bolded part applies.

That FAQ was about Drop Pods auto losing HPs because they immobilise on landing. Also without that FAQ there would be an argument that Grav weapons did 2 HPs from the FIRST hit and 3 from any after that.

The FAQ part is of no importance here. Look at the series of events. First 6 cause the vehicle to lose a hull point and become immobilized (one hp down total). Second 6 causes the vehicles to lose a hull point and become immobilized as well, however the part you are overlooking is what happens to a vehicle that is immobilized if it becomes immobilized again, the answer has been pointed out and is found in the BRB that said vehicle loses an additional hull point. So the tally is one from first shot, one from second shot and a third from the second immobilization.

2 things:
1) they are not resolved at the same time, P.73 BRB states that once hits are resolved you roll once for each and resolve seperately. It is after all a weapon that hits.
2) the wording on a penerating hit is basically the same, vehicle loses 1 hull point and suffers a result on the vehicle damage table.
So your arguement to nullify the additional lose of a hull point from the second damage would have to apply to normal pens as well, after all it to says loses a single hull point. And if that is the case why put the wording for a second hull point loss to begin with.
The FAQ applies just fine, the imobilized result does not cause a loss of a hull point, the loss of a hull point causes you to lose a hull point and the second imobilized result causes an additional hull point loss. The key word in the FAQ is "Automatically" and the answer is no it doesn't automatically lose an additional hull point the conditions set forth cause the additional loss

I'm with two hull points.

It doesn't really matter what the table says should happen if you roll an additional immobilized result because you are never rolling on that table to begin with.

If you hit a vehicle with a grav gun, then you immobilize it and it looses a single hit point.

If you hit the vehicle with another weapon you follow the vehicle table, and if you roll another immobilized then you follow the rules in the table and it strips two hull points.

If you hit the vehicle with another grav weapon then you follow the rule in the codex (with beats out the BRB) and it takes a single hull point. Not "a single hull point, unless it is already immobilized then it's not a single..."

Specific rules overwrite BRB rules.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm with two hull points.

It doesn't really matter what the table says should happen if you roll an additional immobilized result because you are never rolling on that table to begin with.

If you hit a vehicle with a grav gun, then you immobilize it and it looses a single hit point.

If you hit the vehicle with another weapon you follow the vehicle table, and if you roll another immobilized then you follow the rules in the table and it strips two hull points.

If you hit the vehicle with another grav weapon then you follow the rule in the codex (with beats out the BRB) and it takes a single hull point. Not "a single hull point, unless it is already immobilized then it's not a single..."

Specific rules overwrite BRB rules.

By the same logic when you hit my tank with your Grav weapons, I can keep moving it?
After all the details in the imobilized result from the BRB are what prevents me from moving it; and the wording is "Suffers and Imobilized result" which isn't defined in the codex

 d-usa wrote:
I'm with two hull points.
It doesn't really matter what the table says should happen if you roll an additional immobilized result because you are never rolling on that table to begin with.
If you hit a vehicle with a grav gun, then you immobilize it and it looses a single hit point.
If you hit the vehicle with another weapon you follow the vehicle table, and if you roll another immobilized then you follow the rules in the table and it strips two hull points.
If you hit the vehicle with another grav weapon then you follow the rule in the codex (with beats out the BRB) and it takes a single hull point. Not "a single hull point, unless it is already immobilized then it's not a single..."
Specific rules overwrite BRB rules.

-Okay, you'd be wrong though.
-The additional Hull Point is not caused by rolling on the table, it's caused by suffering an Immobilized Result.
-True.
-Yes.
-Yes, a single hull point and an immobilized "result". That result causes a second Hull Point to be lost if the vehicle was already Immobilized.

The "a single hull point" does not mean nothing else can happen.
Proven easily by the fact that removing the last hull point will cause it to be wrecked.
According to you that wouldn't happen, since it's not included in the Grav rule.. Right?

I'm with the loss of 2 hullpoints in that scenario. One immobilized result doesn't happen before the other, and they are resolved simultaneously. Separately doesn't mean non-simultaneously.

So when I shoot with two Melta and both penetrate and both score an Immobilize result, you only lose two Hull Points?

I think the final decision hinges on the written "immobilized and a single hull point" vs the interpretation that would require it to read "immobilized and an additional hull point".

That's how I've always played it, Kangodo.

BRB Pg. 74 wrote: Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle, or a Flyer with Locked Velocity (see page 81) instead removes an additional hull point.

The only argument I see for 2HP being removed on additional rolls due to the vehicle already being immobilised is that it says "Any Immobilized results" and since the grav weapon does not roll on the Vehicle Damage Table you are not getting a 'result' from the table.

I don't have the SM Codex so the wording may say something like "on a roll of a 6 vehicles suffer an immobilised result."

Am I saying that this is correct? No. I am saying this is the only argument I could see people using to fight against losing 3HP, even if it is weak. This may be how some interpret it.

Edit: The "single hull point" i would say has some grounds as well as due to it saying 'single' it could be interpreted as meaning no more than one can be lost per shot.

Well, you don't do all the results at the same time.
Otherwise a vehicle could explode 5 times or you could destroy the same weapon multiple times on a vehicle with 5 weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redkeyboard wrote:
I don't have the SM Codex so the wording may say something like "on a roll of a 6 vehicles suffer an immobilised result."

That is exactly what it says: "but on a 6, the target suffers an lmmobilised result and loses a single Hull Point."

The rule book says to resolve each hit one at a time, and stop immediately when it becomes wrecked or destroyed. It is not at the same time. It's like p. 73.
And it's suffers an Imobilized result. Not becomes Imobilized
Edit: Kangodo beat me to it

Kangodo wrote:
Well, you don't do all the results at the same time.
Otherwise a vehicle could explode 5 times or you could destroy the same weapon multiple times on a vehicle with 5 weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redkeyboard wrote:
I don't have the SM Codex so the wording may say something like "on a roll of a 6 vehicles suffer an immobilised result."

That is exactly what it says: "but on a 6, the target suffers an lmmobilised result and loses a single Hull Point."

In that case there is very little ground for the argument with only 2HP rather than 3HP imo.

"The FAQ part is of no importance here. Look at the series of events. First 6 cause the vehicle to lose a hull point and become immobilized (one hp down total). Second 6 causes the vehicles to lose a hull point and become immobilized as well, however the part you are overlooking is what happens to a vehicle that is immobilized if it becomes immobilized again, the answer has been pointed out and is found in the BRB that said vehicle loses an additional hull point. So the tally is one from first shot, one from second shot and a third from the second immobilization."

Brilliantly stated. : )