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.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The FAQ ties a hull point to the immobilized result that vehicles take for failing a Dangerous Terrain Test which resulted in a vehicle damage chart result that includes losing a hull point like any vehicle damage chart result should.

Corrected that for ya.

Double fixed.

My point with wounding was a wound before armor saves from a bolter or lasgun or lascannon invoke different results or effects on the target, they all cause a wound but how that wound is played out is different depending on the circumstances.

Which is not even remotely the same thing.

We're talking about a situation where the exact same effect is being applied. The only difference is the trigger of that effect... all other rules that applied to the situation (prior to the new FAQ) were the same.

 insaniak wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
It i not the same because it did not get immobilized BECAUSE of entering difficult terrain or FAILING a terrain test.

So you think that identical situations should have different outcomes?

It is worth noting that the losing of a HP is ONLY mentioned for failed dangerous terrain tests and armor pen results, therefore ONLY in these two instances should a vehicle that is immobile/immobilized lose a HP. All other possible ways of being immobilized need an FAQ entry otherwise you guys are ruling RAI not RAW. I was merely pointing out what RAW is.

Yes, we've covered that. Repeatedly.

The point is that regardless of what the RAW currently says, it's highly likely that if an when GW FAQ this, they'll rule that the Drop Pod suffers from Immobilisation in exactly the same way as every other Immobilised vehicle. For the moment, you can certainly make a RAW argument for the pod not loosing a Hull Point, but if you seriously think the game will stay that way once GW realise that the current FAQ entry for the Drop Pod is still referring to 5th edition rules, you're most likely going to be disappointed.

Actually, I feel that things will go in the other direction. My suspicion is that they wouldn't nerf a SM only vehicle anymore than it already is from being Oppen topped and immobile. However at the moment, the raw is silly and means it losses a HP from dropping.

If/when it gets faq'ed I'm willing to bet money against it being maintained as the current RAW suggests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Rigeld2, you are absolutely correct, but the FAQ ties it on the basis of taking/failing a dangerous terrain test.

The fact is that a drop pod does not take an immobilized result from taking a dangerous terrain test or pen result so it is not necessarily subject to taking a HP like in these instances. That is my point.

It doesnt tie the hull point loss to failing a dangerous terrain test. It includes the hull point loss with the immobilization result.
Yes, the DT test caused the immobilization result, but it's the immobilize that includes the hull point loss.

Even if people have been suggesting that, its not necessary for this interpretation, "and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has
suffered an Immobilised damage result" is the bit that suggests a HP loss. All respects being the more important part; a HP removal is an aspect of the damage covered by 'all respects'. They didn't say "some respects' or 'most respects'. Poor word choice that results in a stupid RAW, but thats the way it is.

Name one instance of a vehicle taking a damage result and not loosing a hull point; Subsequent arguments about the recent FAQ ruling are only for reinforcement.

In fact, if you look at another item that can enter play via deep strike, you'll notice a particular lack of the damage reference but an inclusion of the immobile status. Tau Drone sentries enter play via deep strike, are immobile and open topped, but do not mention damage with regards to the landing. It mentions it if it happens to scatter (or land purposefully) on top of a vehicle, but not from the landing itself.

Again, I maintain that this isn't RAI, but unfortunately, it seems pretty easy to make the case that this is RAW. My group has already house FAQ'ed against it by the way.

Space Marine drop pods are made to hit the ground and be reused. They have ceramite shielded bottoms. Therefore I say no, it does not take a hull point.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Space Marine drop pods are made to hit the ground and be reused. They have ceramite shielded bottoms. Therefore I say no, it does not take a hull point.

True, but they do crash sometimes.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Space Marine drop pods are made to hit the ground and be reused. They have ceramite shielded bottoms. Therefore I say no, it does not take a hull point.

Fluff arguments work so well...

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Space Marine drop pods are made to hit the ground and be reused. They have ceramite shielded bottoms. Therefore I say no, it does not take a hull point.

Just because it is reusable doesn't mean it won't be damaged by its designed use. The Shuttle was reusable but still required fixing and maintenance after missions, to prevent things like Challenger and Columbia.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Space Marine drop pods are made to hit the ground and be reused. They have ceramite shielded bottoms. Therefore I say no, it does not take a hull point.

Actually take a look at the kit; the bottom is covered in vectored jets and small mechanical parts.

If you are arguing suffering an immoblized result goes hand in hand with losing hull point. Then a penetrating hit which results in an immoblized result will cause you to lose two hull points.

If your already immoblized you'll lose 3 hull points from one shot.

One from a pen hit
One from rolling the immoblized result
One from already being immoblized.

This is stupid, you do not lose a hull point from becoming immoblized unless it is from DT or a pen hit.

When deepstriking, it comes out to three now, apparently.

editing to add:
Ooops, I misread WhoopieMonster's comment as relevant.

No, it is a HP.

How is it not relevant.

The whole basis of this deep strike arguement is that a failed dangerous terrain test results in immobilized, which also results in losing a HP. So ergo, becoming immobilized by any other means, such as a Drop Pod, results in losing a HP.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
How is it not relevant.

The whole basis of this deep strike arguement is that a failed dangerous terrain test results in immobilized, which also results in losing a HP. So ergo, becoming immobilized by any other means, such as a Drop Pod, results in losing a HP.

Following this logic:

I have a Rhino, it suffers 2 penetrating hits, loses 2 hull points.
My opponent rolls a '4' and a '4' on the Vehicle damage table.
The first '4' destroys a weapon, the Rhino's stormbolter.
Now, the second '4' is weapon destroyed. But the Rhino has no more weapons. The rules say if the vehicle has no weapons left, this result is treated as an immobilised result.
So now my Rhino suffers an immobilised result on the vehicle damage table.
By your logic, by suffering this immobilised result, "...becoming immobilized by any other means..." means that my Rhino is not just immobilised, but has lost an additional hull point, so it is now destroyed?

I don't think so. The Rhino is now immobile, and has no weapons, but still has 1 Hull Point remaining.

Suffering an immobilised result on the Vehicle Damage Table does not, in and of itself, result in the loss of a Hull Point.

Correct I have said as much in post 58.

So how does a drop pod lose a Hull Point when it suffers an immobilized result automatically?

WhoopieMonster wrote:
Correct I have said as much in post 58.

So how does a drop pod lose a Hull Point when it suffers an immobilized result automatically?

Ahh! We're arguing from the same side!
Sorry, misunderstood your post. Thought you were saying that a drop pod would lose a hull point upon landing.

Apologies. I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

My point, some what laboured, was if you are suggesting becoming immobilized results in you losing a Hull Point as per the Dangerous Terrain rules is applicable to Drop Pods, then you are also acknowledging that an immobilized roll on the damage chart will result in your vehicle losing another Hull Point.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
Apologies. I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

No worries mate!

WhoopieMonster wrote:
My point, some what laboured, was if you are suggesting becoming immobilized results in you losing a Hull Point as per the Dangerous Terrain rules is applicable to Drop Pods, then you are also acknowledging that an immobilized roll on the damage chart will result in your vehicle losing another Hull Point.

True enough, which was the point I was also trying to make in my example of a Rhino taking 2 hits.

It would be simply enough for GW to have said that:

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, they are immoblised and lose a Hull Point.

But, they didn't!

I find it interesting that Insaniak acknowledges that he is wrong per the RAW, but is arguing for the sake of what he thinks a hypothetical, yet to be released if at all, FAQ will do. The facts are pretty clear here:

An immobilized result from a failed dangerous terrain test

=/=

An immobilized result from deepstriking

There is not a RAW argument at all to support that they are the same and even the RAI argument is shaky as hell for that matter.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I find it interesting that Insaniak acknowledges that he is wrong per the RAW, but is arguing for the sake of what he thinks a hypothetical, yet to be released if at all, FAQ will do. The facts are pretty clear here:

An immobilized result from a failed dangerous terrain test

=/=

An immobilized result from deepstriking

There is not a RAW argument at all to support that they are the same and even the RAI argument is shaky as hell for that matter.

Well RAI I can see them saying that it will lose a hull point, but yes RAW atm, they are ok.

 time wizard wrote:


It would be simply enough for GW to have said that:

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, they are immoblised and lose a Hull Point.

But, they didn't!

The thing about that is that it is still referencing the 5th edition vehicle damage rules.

 time wizard wrote:
Now, the second '4' is weapon destroyed. But the Rhino has no more weapons. The rules say if the vehicle has no weapons left, this result is treated as an immobilised result.
So now my Rhino suffers an immobilised result on the vehicle damage table.
By your logic, by suffering this immobilised result, "...becoming immobilized by any other means..." means that my Rhino is not just immobilised, but has lost an additional hull point, so it is now destroyed?

In this case, you're not taking a weapon destroyed result, so it's just an immobilized result. If you're not already immobilized, that's a total of one hull point - one for the immobilization, and none for the weapon destroyed which didn't happen.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

The thing about that is that it is still referencing the 5th edition vehicle damage rules.

Exactly my point a few posts back.

It is unfortunate that there is no way to point out to GW that this FAQ references rules that no longer exist and as such is in error.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyrian wrote:

 time wizard wrote:
Now, the second '4' is weapon destroyed. But the Rhino has no more weapons. The rules say if the vehicle has no weapons left, this result is treated as an immobilised result.
So now my Rhino suffers an immobilised result on the vehicle damage table.
By your logic, by suffering this immobilised result, "...becoming immobilized by any other means..." means that my Rhino is not just immobilised, but has lost an additional hull point, so it is now destroyed?

In this case, you're not taking a weapon destroyed result, so it's just an immobilized result. If you're not already immobilized, that's a total of one hull point - one for the immobilization, and none for the weapon destroyed which didn't happen.

No, look at the rules.

If the vehicle has no weapons, and suffers a "Weapon Destroyed" result on the Vehicle Damage Table, you instead treat this as an Immobilised result.

If, however, the vehicle is already immobilised, and suffers an additional "Immobilised" result on the Vehicle Damage Table, you don't suffer a "Weapon Destroyed" result, by rule you "...instead remove an additional Hull Point."

So if in my example, my Rhino take 2 penetrating hits, it loses 2 hull points.
If my opponent now rolls a '5' and a '5' on the Vehicle Damage Table, the first '5' results in my Rhino becomming immobilised.
Now, the second '5' results in a further Immobilised result, and since my Rhino is already immobilised, it loses an additional Hull Point and so is wrecked.

When the drop pod touches down, it becomes immobilised. It was not previously immobilised, so it does not lose a hull point at that time.

If, however, the drop pod touches down in difficult terrain, and fails it's dangerous terrain test, it could be argued that it immediately loses 2 hull points.

It becomes immobilised the moment it lands on the table. It is at that point that you roll for the dangerous terrain test.
If it is failed, the drop pod, "...is instantly Immobilised." {rules, page 71}

Now the errata states that:
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”.

So failing the Dangerous Terrain test causes 1 hull point to be lost, and suffering a further immobilised result when immobilised causes an additional Hull Point to be removed.

So a drop pod landing in difficult or dangerous terrain and failing the dangerous terrain test would lose 2 hull points.

But a drop pod landing in the open, would not lose any hull points.

davou wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Rigeld2, you are absolutely correct, but the FAQ ties it on the basis of taking/failing a dangerous terrain test.

The fact is that a drop pod does not take an immobilized result from taking a dangerous terrain test or pen result so it is not necessarily subject to taking a HP like in these instances. That is my point.

It doesnt tie the hull point loss to failing a dangerous terrain test. It includes the hull point loss with the immobilization result.
Yes, the DT test caused the immobilization result, but it's the immobilize that includes the hull point loss.

Even if people have been suggesting that, its not necessary for this interpretation, "and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has
suffered an Immobilised damage result" is the bit that suggests a HP loss. All respects being the more important part; a HP removal is an aspect of the damage covered by 'all respects'. They didn't say "some respects' or 'most respects'. Poor word choice that results in a stupid RAW, but thats the way it is.

Name one instance of a vehicle taking a damage result and not loosing a hull point; Subsequent arguments about the recent FAQ ruling are only for reinforcement.

In fact, if you look at another item that can enter play via deep strike, you'll notice a particular lack of the damage reference but an inclusion of the immobile status. Tau Drone sentries enter play via deep strike, are immobile and open topped, but do not mention damage with regards to the landing. It mentions it if it happens to scatter (or land purposefully) on top of a vehicle, but not from the landing itself.

Something I'm a bit unclear about. Is the resulting loss of an HP due to a Penetrating Hit (i.e., as soon as the AP roll exceeds the target's AV a HP is removed), or is it because of the damage result? Do the rules actually make that distinction? If it's the former then I'm not sure why a Drop Pod would lose a HP when it is initially placed (assuming Dangerous Terrain is not a factor). If it's the later then yes, I'm on board with the HP removal.

-Yad

Yad wrote:
Something I'm a bit unclear about. Is the resulting loss of an HP due to a Penetrating Hit (i.e., as soon as the AP roll exceeds the target's AV a HP is removed), or is it because of the damage result? Do the rules actually make that distinction? If it's the former then I'm not sure why a Drop Pod would lose a HP when it is initially placed (assuming Dangerous Terrain is not a factor). If it's the later then yes, I'm on board with the HP removal.

-Yad

Page 74 of the rulebook.

Glancing hit - vehicle loses a Hull Point.

Penetrating hit - vehicle loses a Hull Point and suffers additional damage from the Vehicle Damage Table.

The only specific time mentioned in the errata where a vehicle would suffer damage without being hit and yet also lose a hull point is in failing a dangerous terrain test.

 time wizard wrote:

Yad wrote:
Something I'm a bit unclear about. Is the resulting loss of an HP due to a Penetrating Hit (i.e., as soon as the AP roll exceeds the target's AV a HP is removed), or is it because of the damage result? Do the rules actually make that distinction? If it's the former then I'm not sure why a Drop Pod would lose a HP when it is initially placed (assuming Dangerous Terrain is not a factor). If it's the later then yes, I'm on board with the HP removal.

-Yad

Page 74 of the rulebook.

Glancing hit - vehicle loses a Hull Point.

Penetrating hit - vehicle loses a Hull Point and suffers additional damage from the Vehicle Damage Table.

The only specific time mentioned in the errata where a vehicle would suffer damage without being hit and yet also lose a hull point is in failing a dangerous terrain test.

Thanks for that

Do the Drop Pod rules say that the Drop Pod suffers a Penetrating Hit?

-Yad

Yad wrote:
Do the Drop Pod rules say that the Drop Pod suffers a Penetrating Hit?

-Yad

No, they only say it counts as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised damage result.

Ok lets break this down one more time:

The FAQ entry talks about what happens when you fail a dangerous terrain test "Immobilized and takes a hull point loss"

The Damage table tells you you are immobilized

THe Drop Pod rules tell you the Drop Pod is Immobilized the moment it hits the ground as per #5 on the damage table.

So nowhere does it say the DP looses a Hull point. Is the DP Immobile, yes, did it fail a dangerous terrain test? NO! The Dangerous terrain FAQ only covers DANGEROUS TERRAIN CHECK FAILURES. It does NOT pertain to landing drop pods for if it did it would be covered under the Drop Pod entry or the Deep striking entry. If you are "thinking" the intent of all immobilized vehicles results in the loss of a HP you are adding biased assumption much in the same way that I am assuming that all the rules are written so that I win. If I do not win that was not the intent of the rules and YOU lose.

time wizard wrote:It is unfortunate that there is no way to point out to GW that this FAQ references rules that no longer exist and as such is in error.

You could always write 'em a letter if it's really bothering you.

time wizard wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
In this case, you're not taking a weapon destroyed result, so it's just an immobilized result. If you're not already immobilized, that's a total of one hull point - one for the immobilization, and none for the weapon destroyed which didn't happen.

If the vehicle has no weapons, and suffers a "Weapon Destroyed" result on the Vehicle Damage Table, you instead treat this as an Immobilised result.

Yeah. That matches up exactly with what I just wrote.

time wizard wrote:If, however, the vehicle is already immobilised, and suffers an additional "Immobilised" result on the Vehicle Damage Table, you don't suffer a "Weapon Destroyed" result, by rule you "...instead remove an additional Hull Point."

So if in my example, my Rhino take 2 penetrating hits, it loses 2 hull points.
If my opponent now rolls a '5' and a '5' on the Vehicle Damage Table, the first '5' results in my Rhino becomming immobilised.
Now, the second '5' results in a further Immobilised result, and since my Rhino is already immobilised, it loses an additional Hull Point and so is wrecked.

That's all correct, but I don't see what it has to do with much of anything else in this thread.

time wizard wrote:When the drop pod touches down, it becomes immobilised. It was not previously immobilised, so it does not lose a hull point at that time.

The contention in this thread is that it loses a hull point inherently for suffering a damage result, both per its own rules and per the dangerous terrain precedent, and not necessarily the additional hull point for taking a second immobilization (although landing in terrain could theoretically trigger that and thereby wreck the pod).

time wizard wrote:If, however, the drop pod touches down in difficult terrain, and fails it's dangerous terrain test, it could be argued that it immediately loses 2 hull points.

"Could be argued"? I think that part is hard to argue with. Is anybody arguing against that?

time wizard wrote:But a drop pod landing in the open, would not lose any hull points.

I've yet to see a convincing argument to that effect. I debunked your prior argument about two weapon destroyed results - you wrote a lot of text not responding to that at all. There are not one, but two solid arguments that landing in the open causes the pod to suffer a hull point with its immobilization. (Argument one is that a Drop Pod becomes immobilized just like it had taken damage, and argument two is that the FAQ for dangerous terrain immobilizations indicates that suffering a hull point is a normal part of becoming immobilized.) In combination, I find them convincing.

Yad wrote:Something I'm a bit unclear about. Is the resulting loss of an HP due to a Penetrating Hit (i.e., as soon as the AP roll exceeds the target's AV a HP is removed), or is it because of the damage result? Do the rules actually make that distinction?

The rules don't do a very good job of making the distinction. By the rulebook alone, I would have said that they are distinct: you lose a hull point, and make a roll on the damage table. But with the FAQ entry for dangerous terrain, they would seem to be naturally linked occurrences.

Dooley wrote:
Ok lets break this down one more time:

The FAQ entry talks about what happens when you fail a dangerous terrain test "Immobilized and takes a hull point loss"

That's not what it says. If you're going to put quotes around something please make sure it's correct. It's been quoted correctly multiple times in this thread.
It "suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point".
I give you $100 including your poker winnings of $65.
How much money did I give you?

THe Drop Pod rules tell you the Drop Pod is Immobilized the moment it hits the ground as per #5 on the damage table.

Again, an incorrect quote.
It "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result"
I don't see the #5 in there - do you?

The Dangerous Terrain FAQ ties a hull point loss to a damage result. It's included. If you take a damage result you must take a hull point.
The Drop Pod is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered a damage result.

You give me $35. $65 was already mine.