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.

Am I reading and interpreting this wrong, or do these two contradict each other?

Page 71 – Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from
the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.


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, orsome other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

Nope, no contradictions.

the first is about dangerous terrain tests, the second is for special weapons that also cause one of those effects on top of the hit.

@sirlynchmob - Correct answer, wrong reasoning. The 2nd FAQ QnA has nothing inherently to do with special weapons and is just about suffering damage results outside of normal damage (such as when a drop pod immobilizes itself)

Any there is no contradiction. It says to lose a hull point it needs to specifically suffer a Glancing or Penetrating hit or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost.

Dangerous terrain specifies the hull point is lost. Simply as that.

The errata was meant to make the immobilized result more devastating, as if having your vehicle get stuck on a fence post was not bad enough. If you go to the page on 71 you will read that it originally had no mention of the loss of a hull point. For that reason the vehicle would just become immobilized, it would not lose any hull points, which clearly was not intended. By errata they have now included that extra sentence making it so you would suffer a hull point if you become immobilized because of terrain.