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:

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 beat me to it. Man, we must be thinking exactly alike or something because I was just about to post up the same thing.

It would appear the entry in the black templar FAQ is more recent than the other ones.

Happyjew wrote:
You give me $35. $65 was already mine.

I give you the immobilize result. The Hull Point was already yours.

Okay, not the best example in the world but not horrible either.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

It ties a hull point loss to a damage result from failing a dangerous terrain test.
The only condition it specifically addresses is failing that test, nothing else.

rigeld2 wrote:
The Drop Pod is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered a damage result.

It doesn't say treated. It says it "...counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way)."

It does not say or address how the damage result was inflicted, it does not say it counts as a vehicle that suffered a glancing or penetrating hit, it does not say to count it as a vehicle that failed a damgerous terain test.

It [the rule] just says it counts as a vehicle that suffered an Immobilised damage result, and that damage result by itself says the only way to lose a hull point is if the vehicle was already immobilised.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

It ties a hull point loss to a damage result from failing a dangerous terrain test.
The only condition it specifically addresses is failing that test, nothing else.

So you're saying the hull point loss isn't included in the immobilize result? It plainly is - the FAQ explicitly says as much.

It doesn't say treated. It says it "...counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way)."

I know that because I quoted it above that line. Counts as is even stronger than treated as.

It [the rule] just says it counts as a vehicle that suffered an Immobilised damage result, and that damage result by itself says the only way to lose a hull point is if the vehicle was already immobilised.

Pre-FAQ I agree with you. With the FAQ that's been released, I don't see a way to avoid tying a hull point loss to an immobilized result (or any damage result).
No, that doesn't mean you take 2 HPs when you take a damage result - you've taken one, and you take the damage result. They're tied together like peas and carrots (note - not serious - Forrest Gump reference)

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're saying the hull point loss isn't included in the immobilize result? It plainly is - the FAQ explicitly says as much.

The Errata explicitly says the loss of a Hull Point is included in a vehicle being immobilised due to a failed dangerous terrain test.

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”.

Nowehere in there does it say that a drop pod arriving on the battlefield suffers an immobilised damage result exactly the same as a failed dangerous terrain test.

You are comparing apples (failed dangerous terrain test) to oranges (drop pods counting as immobilised the moment they touch down).

Because the Space Marine FAQ doesn't say the drop pod "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result" as before, but rather is just says the drop pod "counts as immobilised".

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

So this FAQ would now take precedent, and the pods no longer count as suffering a damage result, they simply count as immobilised, and being immobilised alone doesn't lose a hull point.

rigeld2, by your reasoning if I pen your tank you suffer a HP loss. I then role on the damage table and you suffer another HP loss. Damage roles have nothing to do with HP, you determine how much HP damage is done before you do any damage rolls. Even if you limit the HP loss to the immobilized result, you are still suggesting that you will take an additional HP damage for an immobilized result on the damage table following a normal penertrating hit. This is clearly not the case, but this is exactly what your logic will result in.

Except the Drop Pod rules state "in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result"

Each of time_wizard's arguments is worse than the last. Now he's trying to claim that an FAQ which doesn't address something removes that something by dint of not addressing it.

Oh, well, at least it wasn't a circular argument like the rest of that post, just rehashing the point of disagreement.

WhoopieMonster wrote:
rigeld2, by your reasoning if I pen your tank you suffer a HP loss. I then role on the damage table and you suffer another HP loss. Damage roles have nothing to do with HP, you determine how much HP damage is done before you do any damage rolls. Even if you limit the HP loss to the immobilized result, you are still suggesting that you will take an additional HP damage for an immobilized result on the damage table following a normal penertrating hit. This is clearly not the case, but this is exactly what your logic will result in.

Absolutely not and I addressed that in my last post.
If you're making a damage result roll you've lost a hull point.
The Dangerous Terrain FAQ is showing that the loss of a hull point is included in the damage result roll - it's not completely separate. You can have hull points without damage results, but you cannot have a damage result without a hull point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're saying the hull point loss isn't included in the immobilize result? It plainly is - the FAQ explicitly says as much.

The Errata explicitly says the loss of a Hull Point is included in a vehicle being immobilised due to a failed dangerous terrain test.

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”.

No, that's not what it says.
It says that failing a difficult terrain test causes X which includes Y. Not that failing a difficult terrain test causes X and Y. There's a difference there.

Nowehere in there does it say that a drop pod arriving on the battlefield suffers an immobilised damage result exactly the same as a failed dangerous terrain test.

I've never, ever asserted that. Please stop repeating it like it means something.

You are comparing apples (failed dangerous terrain test) to oranges (drop pods counting as immobilised the moment they touch down).

No, I'm comparing an immobilzied result including a hull point to counting as a vehicle suffering an immobilized damage result.

Because the Space Marine FAQ doesn't say the drop pod "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result" as before, but rather is just says the drop pod "counts as immobilised".

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

So this FAQ would now take precedent, and the pods no longer count as suffering a damage result, they simply count as immobilised, and being immobilised alone doesn't lose a hull point.

Really?

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.

If you're really going to insist that this cross codex unit has different rules depending on the codex when this is errata you're fooling yourself.
You're using a 5th edition FAQ to justify your stance when the 6th edition FAQ has a) removed the question you're citing b) has errated the entry.

Pyrian wrote:
Each of time_wizard's arguments is worse than the last.

High praise indeed! Thank you!

Then I'll not trouble you any futher on this subject.

Counts as immobilized; not counts as failed dangerous terrain test; not counts has receiving a penetrating hit which results in an "immobilized" on the damage chart.

The immobilized does not remove the hull point.

Sorry if this was said already...

 Deuce11 wrote:
Counts as immobilized; not counts as failed dangerous terrain test; not counts has receiving a penetrating hit which results in an "immobilized" on the damage chart.

The immobilized does not remove the hull point.

Sorry if this was said already...

Please read the thread before posting.

Does it deserve a FAQ? Less worthy rules debates have gotten them. I would not expect anyone to demand -1HP.

There's RAW, RAI, and RIP ("Rules in Practice").

You heard it coined here first, folks!

 Deuce11 wrote:
Does it deserve a FAQ? Less worthy rules debates have gotten them. I would not expect anyone to demand -1HP.

There's RAW, RAI, and RIP ("Rules in Practice").

You heard it coined here first, folks!

It's a rules debate, not how anyone would actually play it in a game.
In a game I wouldn't expect them to loose a Hull Point.
Rules wise however it seems them should.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Deuce11 wrote:
Does it deserve a FAQ? Less worthy rules debates have gotten them. I would not expect anyone to demand -1HP.

There's RAW, RAI, and RIP ("Rules in Practice").

You heard it coined here first, folks!

It's a rules debate, not how anyone would actually play it in a game.
In a game I wouldn't expect them to loose a Hull Point.
Rules wise however it seems them should.

Well if the game is not going to be effected by the debate, why waste your time?

Carry on.

 Deuce11 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Deuce11 wrote:
Does it deserve a FAQ? Less worthy rules debates have gotten them. I would not expect anyone to demand -1HP.

There's RAW, RAI, and RIP ("Rules in Practice").

You heard it coined here first, folks!

It's a rules debate, not how anyone would actually play it in a game.
In a game I wouldn't expect them to loose a Hull Point.
Rules wise however it seems them should.

Well if the game is not going to be effected by the debate, why waste your time?

Carry on.

Because of the potential that they will be losing a hull point as the intent is there, and the rules largely back it up. We discuss it so there are no "hey guess what, this happens now" kinds of moments. Plus, as a debate needing an answer the more it is discussed the more chance we have of an official decision from the mouth of the horse.

As it stands now, there's no actual rules backing for them not taking the HP Loss other than "because it doesn't say they do".

What you're saying is like telling UFO enthusiasts "Why debate life on other planets? Is it going to change your tomorrow?" Long and short of it is, you don't know.

 Kevin949 wrote:
As it stands now, there's no actual rules backing for them not taking the HP Loss other than "because it doesn't say they do".

Which is usually a pretty good indicator

But yeah, we debate mostly for the point of debating.

These are apples and these are oranges...

YMDC is a great forum for rules debates and very often it is because different geographic regions play ambiguous rules differently. But in this case NO ONE is going to play a drop pod as one hull point upon entering play. NO ONE.

I am tapping out. Respond if you want.

 Deuce11 wrote:
These are apples and these are oranges...

YMDC is a great forum for rules debates and very often it is because different geographic regions play ambiguous rules differently. But in this case NO ONE is going to play a drop pod as one hull point upon entering play. NO ONE.

I am tapping out. Respond if you want.

One hull point?

You lose one for landing immobilized. Done. 3-1=2.

@rigeld2

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”.

When does a vehicle, as a result of receiving an Immobilised result actually lose a HP?

Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result Immobilized
2nd Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result 2nd Immobilized (1 additional HP Lost)

Is that right? (I don't have my BRB with me right now)

If that's right, then I don't think a Drop Pod would lose 2 HPs if it landed in Dangerous Terrain. Because:

1.) When it landed it didn't suffer a Penetrating Hit so no loss of HP. It is Immobilized, but per the Immobilization rules the first Immobilized does not cost a HP.

2.) It fails the Dangerous Terrain check causing it to be Immobilized again. Per the Immobilization rules this will cost a HP. There still was no Penetrating Hit so no loss from that.

So to me the statement 'including losing one hull point' is just to acknowledge that the Drop Pod has already been immobilized when it landed and this would constitute a 2nd immobilization.

If I'm off on the Immobilization rule then disregard all that as junk

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result Immobilized
2nd Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result 2nd Immobilized (1 additional HP Lost)

Is that right? (I don't have my BRB with me right now)

Yes.

So to me the statement 'including losing one hull point' is just to acknowledge that the Drop Pod has already been immobilized when it landed and this would constitute a 2nd immobilization.

You have your FAQs confused. The "including losing one Hull Point" is in the Dangerous Terrain FAQ, and does not apply soley to the drop pod.

Since you can't immobilize yourself twice on Dangerous Terrain in a single turn this must mean that it's linking the Hull Point loss to the immobilization.

Fragile wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
As it stands now, there's no actual rules backing for them not taking the HP Loss other than "because it doesn't say they do".

Which is usually a pretty good indicator

But yeah, we debate mostly for the point of debating.

In some cases, yes I agree. But the odds are stacked in favor of the drop pod losing a hull point for suffering an immobilized damage result. In every other instance of suffering an immobilized damage result it is accompanied by a hull point loss. Keeping in mind there are only two other instances of this. A pen hit, and a failed DT test. So, other than "it doesn't say you do" why would you think the drop pod is immune when nothing else is?

But still, it does very much require an official ruling. As it stands, I'd suggest discussing it with your opponent or TO.

Just don't be surprised when it's officially decided they do in fact lose the hull point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:
@rigeld2

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”.

When does a vehicle, as a result of receiving an Immobilised result actually lose a HP?

Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result Immobilized
2nd Penetrating Hit - 1 HP lost, Result 2nd Immobilized (1 additional HP Lost)

Is that right? (I don't have my BRB with me right now)

If that's right, then I don't think a Drop Pod would lose 2 HPs if it landed in Dangerous Terrain. Because:

1.) When it landed it didn't suffer a Penetrating Hit so no loss of HP. It is Immobilized, but per the Immobilization rules the first Immobilized does not cost a HP.

2.) It fails the Dangerous Terrain check causing it to be Immobilized again. Per the Immobilization rules this will cost a HP. There still was no Penetrating Hit so no loss from that.

So to me the statement 'including losing one hull point' is just to acknowledge that the Drop Pod has already been immobilized when it landed and this would constitute a 2nd immobilization.

If I'm off on the Immobilization rule then disregard all that as junk

-Yad

Regardless to the topic at hand, when the drop pod lands it "is immediately immobilized". So we will assume, for now, that landing doesn't take an HP hit (for the purpose of keeping the drop pod alive in this discussion). You NOW take a dangerous test and if you're unlucky and fail you take 1 hull point of damage and suffer an immobilized result. The drop pod is already immobilized (per the BT faq wording and the nature of the vehicle) and thus suffers an additional hull point loss.

I think you just had your order of operations mixed up.

 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!

No... because as has been pointed out several times now, the FAQ entry that deals with this is still referring to 5th edition rules, which suggests rather strongly that they overlooked it.

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.

Interesting why? RAW isn't the sole basis of a rules discussion. We quite often discuss how we think a rule should be played where the RAW is debatable, or where it seems obvious (if only to some) that the wind will blow a different way to the way the rules seem to be suggesting... which is the case here.

The Drop Pod entry hasn't been updated for 6th edition yet. The Dangerous Terrain ruling very strongly suggests that GW are playing the game with any damage to the vehicle removing a hull point.

So yes, you can claim RAW all you want for now... all I'm saying is, don't get too attached to it. Given the Dangerous Terrain precedent, it would make no sense for GW to not rule that the drop pod loses a hull point on landing, unless they're going to change their minds on the Dangerous Terrain hull point.

The Drop Pod entry *has* been updated for one Codex.
And it lends itself to suffering a HP on landing.

Dooley wrote:
C'mon people are we really trying to say a drop pod takes damage on the turn it arrives? The vehicel counts as being imobilized as per the roll on the damage table. The result on the damage table says NOTHING about taking a hull point loss. Are you trying to say that if someone were to deepstrike a Basilisk Gun emplacement (IA books) it takes a hull point ding? Drop Pods have retro rockets that slow them down before impact (they are even modeld on the model) and are designed to hit the ground. I will give you that if I drop a pod into Difficult terrain and fail the test I would take a hull point ding but only if I fail the DT Test.

By this logic a unit with 4 Haywire grenades would automaticaly wreck any stationary vehicle they go up against!

Correct, I am with you sir. Drop pods descend from space but they have complex mechanisms and retrothrusters (read fluff or look at bottom of droppods) yes they hit the ground at harsh speeds but this isn't anything the super powerful technolog of the 41st millennium isn't designed to handle on it's most armored spot. Infact they are considered almost impregnable before opening their arms, these things are used over and over again with little if any repairs needed it only comes from the absurd tech or damage of other armies to really hurt it... again only one when exposed.

I would NEVER try this BS on someone and i am almost ashamed we are considering it here. The Vehicle has a special rule of Immobilized not a damage result it wouldn't inflict the HP until you shoot it, end of story, do not pass go do not collect 200 teef for this absurd idea.

I just want to point out that the loss of a HP In the FAQ everyone keeps quoting says ",including the loss of a hull point"...

If you look at simple grammar rules, the "including" could apply to being because of either the immobilized result or the dangerous terrain test or both. I would argue that given the formation of the sentence that the loss of a HP is just an additional affect from the failed terrain test and not the immobilized result. Bottom line is, all we are doing is arguing what GW intended it to apply to and then inferring that to come to our conclusions...

Many people are saying the simple getting an immobilized result means you lose a HP but that simply does not logically follow and people are not getting this...The loss of a HP is either because of the pen result or failed terrain test and they disregard this and jump to the conclusion that its the immobilized result that makes them lose a HP.

All I am saying is you cannot logically argue that because it is immobilized, it loses a HP, that is non-sequitor.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
Correct, I am with you sir. Drop pods descend from space but they have complex mechanisms and retrothrusters (read fluff or look at bottom of droppods) yes they hit the ground at harsh speeds but this isn't anything the super powerful technolog of the 41st millennium isn't designed to handle on it's most armored spot. Infact they are considered almost impregnable before opening their arms, these things are used over and over again with little if any repairs needed it only comes from the absurd tech or damage of other armies to really hurt it... again only one when exposed.

And yet GW decided to write the rules for it so that it suffers damage automatically upon landing, rather than simply creating a 'Stationary' vehicle type that can't move around the board.

I would NEVER try this BS on someone and i am almost ashamed we are considering it here. The Vehicle has a special rule of Immobilized not a damage result it wouldn't inflict the HP until you shoot it, end of story, do not pass go do not collect 200 teef for this absurd idea.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, people were saying the exact same thing when the pod was originally released back in 4th edition. A number of people argued long and hard that GW surely couldn't have meant for the Drop Pod to automatically count as being damaged on arrival, which at that point in time meant that you handed free Victory Points to your opponent just by having Drop Pods in your army list... right up until GW FAQd it and said that Yes, in fact, that's exactly what they meant.

 mortetvie wrote:
I just want to point out that the loss of a HP In the FAQ everyone keeps quoting says ",including the loss of a hull point"...

If you look at simple grammar rules, the "including" could apply to being because of either the immobilized result or the dangerous terrain test or both. I would argue that given the formation of the sentence that the loss of a HP is just an additional affect from the failed terrain test and not the immobilized result. Bottom line is, all we are doing is arguing what GW intended it to apply to and then inferring that to come to our conclusions...

Many people are saying the simple getting an immobilized result means you lose a HP but that simply does not logically follow and people are not getting this...The loss of a HP is either because of the pen result or failed terrain test and they disregard this and jump to the conclusion that its the immobilized result that makes them lose a HP.

All I am saying is you cannot logically argue that because it is immobilized, it loses a HP, that is non-sequitor.

It's worded that way because if you look at the wording in the rulebook about failing dangerous terrain tests, there is next to nothing in there stating anything beyond "the vehicle is immobilized as per the vehicle damage chart" or some such thing. It's ridiculously vague which is why everyone assumed you didn't lose a hull point (heck, a week prior to the FAQ coming out my friend and I decided the same thing on this exact situation). So they added that word "including" because they had to, to follow proper grammar protocol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
Correct, I am with you sir. Drop pods descend from space but they have complex mechanisms and retrothrusters (read fluff or look at bottom of droppods) yes they hit the ground at harsh speeds but this isn't anything the super powerful technolog of the 41st millennium isn't designed to handle on it's most armored spot. Infact they are considered almost impregnable before opening their arms, these things are used over and over again with little if any repairs needed it only comes from the absurd tech or damage of other armies to really hurt it... again only one when exposed.

And yet GW decided to write the rules for it so that it suffers damage automatically upon landing, rather than simply creating a 'Stationary' vehicle type that can't move around the board.

I would NEVER try this BS on someone and i am almost ashamed we are considering it here. The Vehicle has a special rule of Immobilized not a damage result it wouldn't inflict the HP until you shoot it, end of story, do not pass go do not collect 200 teef for this absurd idea.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, people were saying the exact same thing when the pod was originally released back in 4th edition. A number of people argued long and hard that GW surely couldn't have meant for the Drop Pod to automatically count as being damaged on arrival, which at that point in time meant that you handed free Victory Points to your opponent just by having Drop Pods in your army list... right up until GW FAQd it and said that Yes, in fact, that's exactly what they meant.

For 30 points and near deep-strike-invulnerability, I'd hope there were more drawbacks to them. Hell, I don't even think they should have a gun or PotMS.

 mortetvie wrote:
I just want to point out that the loss of a HP In the FAQ everyone keeps quoting says ",including the loss of a hull point"...

If you look at simple grammar rules, the "including" could apply to being because of either the immobilized result or the dangerous terrain test or both.

No, it can't.
Look at the pre-FAQ dangerous terrain rules. Look at all the rules surrounding dangerous terrain. Do you see anything involving hull points? No. Which means that the only thing that could be including the hull point loss would be the immobilization.

I would argue that given the formation of the sentence that the loss of a HP is just an additional affect from the failed terrain test and not the immobilized result. Bottom line is, all we are doing is arguing what GW intended it to apply to and then inferring that to come to our conclusions...

The proper word to use in that case is "additional". They didn't use that word.

Many people are saying the simple getting an immobilized result means you lose a HP but that simply does not logically follow and people are not getting this...The loss of a HP is either because of the pen result or failed terrain test and they disregard this and jump to the conclusion that its the immobilized result that makes them lose a HP.

All I am saying is you cannot logically argue that because it is immobilized, it loses a HP, that is non-sequitor.

Simple grammar proves you wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
I just want to point out that the loss of a HP In the FAQ everyone keeps quoting says ",including the loss of a hull point"...

If you look at simple grammar rules, the "including" could apply to being because of either the immobilized result or the dangerous terrain test or both.

No, it can't.
Look at the pre-FAQ dangerous terrain rules. Look at all the rules surrounding dangerous terrain. Do you see anything involving hull points? No. Which means that the only thing that could be including the hull point loss would be the immobilization.

I would argue that given the formation of the sentence that the loss of a HP is just an additional affect from the failed terrain test and not the immobilized result. Bottom line is, all we are doing is arguing what GW intended it to apply to and then inferring that to come to our conclusions...

The proper word to use in that case is "additional". They didn't use that word.

Many people are saying the simple getting an immobilized result means you lose a HP but that simply does not logically follow and people are not getting this...The loss of a HP is either because of the pen result or failed terrain test and they disregard this and jump to the conclusion that its the immobilized result that makes them lose a HP.

All I am saying is you cannot logically argue that because it is immobilized, it loses a HP, that is non-sequitor.

Simple grammar proves you wrong.

When you talk about the pre-faq dangerous terrain rules....that doesn't prove your point so I don't see why you bother bringing it up. All that can be inferred from the updated FAQ is that the dangerous terrain test is intended to cause the damage and therefore the HP damage, or the immobilized result is... you can't automatically assume your interpretation is right.

Furthermore... perhaps you can quote the basic grammar rule that makes me wrong?