Drop pods Counting as immobile when they fall; -1 HP?

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.

**Tyr Grimtooth**

insaniak wrote:
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.

RAW arguments are always based upon the abiguity of a written rule that is open to multiple interpretations, hence the conflict arises. You are basing your argument off the assumption that a FAQ will come along and validate your position.

I could say that due to the nature of the drop pod falling at such a speed to cause damage to itself, that I can place a large blast marker against the edge of the drop pod and anything under the marker suffers a strength 10 ap1 hit, because a FAQ might be coming that says it will.

Now the problem with this method is that you are proposing a hull point loss now based upon assumption that said hull point loss will be validated by a FAQ that does not yet exist or if it ever will for that matter. Even moreso is that other people are then rallying behind your unsubstantiated cause on the basis of a non-existant FAQ that you just have a "hunch" is forthcoming as soon as GW realizes their folly.

**kirsanth**

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
RAW arguments are always based upon the abiguity of a written rule that is open to multiple interpretations, hence the conflict arises.

This happens much less often than people that think RAW is a bad word claim.

Many times people simply mis-read, make assumptions, or are taught incorrectly - and then continue to argue an incorrect point. I know I have.

The fact that the FAQ clarified that losing a hull point is part of being immobilized is an inconvenience to many, for sure.
So was losing EW for Tyranids.

**insaniak**

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
RAW arguments are always based upon the abiguity of a written rule that is open to multiple interpretations, hence the conflict arises. You are basing your argument off the assumption that a FAQ will come along and validate your position.

I'm not interested in 'validation'. I'm pointing out how I think the game will play for the benefit of anyone who was up in the air about it.

I could say that due to the nature of the drop pod falling at such a speed to cause damage to itself, that I can place a large blast marker against the edge of the drop pod and anything under the marker suffers a strength 10 ap1 hit, because a FAQ might be coming that says it will.

And that would be relevant to the discussion, how?

Making up rules out of whole cloth, and extrapolating a future ruling on an unclear issue based on current established precedence are not the same thing.

Now the problem with this method is that you are proposing a hull point loss now based upon assumption that said hull point loss will be validated by a FAQ that does not yet exist or if it ever will for that matter.

No, I'm proposing a hull point loss based on the fact that GW have ruled that way for another rule that has an otherwise identical effect (and was in fact entirely identical up until it was FAQd).

**mortetvie**

kirsanth wrote:
Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
RAW arguments are always based upon the abiguity of a written rule that is open to multiple interpretations, hence the conflict arises.
This happens much less often than people that think RAW is a bad word claim.

Many times people simply mis-read, make assumptions, or are taught incorrectly - and then continue to argue an incorrect point. I know I have.

The fact that the FAQ clarified that losing a hull point is part of being immobilized is an inconvenience to many, for sure.
So was losing EW for Tyranids.

Just to clarify, you keep ASSUMING they clarified you to lose a HP as part of being immobilized and that simply is not necessarily the case...That is what I keep trying to establish, you cannot automatically assume that it is the immobilized result that causes the loss of the HP based on the language of the FAQ...

it doesn't necessarily follow that an immobilized result causes the loss of a HP. It necessarily follows that an armor pen or failed dangerous terrain test do, however. Simple logic.

**rigeld2**

mortetvie wrote:
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.

If it mentioned hull point damage before it could be read that the DT failure causes the hull point damage and they just moved where the wording is.

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.

If A causes B and therefore C, C is a part of B. You can't have B without C.

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

"The price for the ticket is $15.75 including sales tax."
The sales tax is included in the $15.75 which is the price. The sales tax is not directly included in the price.
"A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point"
The Hull Point loss is included in the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, not directly in the Dangerous Terrain test.

Include means "Comprise or contain as part of a whole" (if the Oxford dictionary differs, let me know).
So the Hull Point loss is contained as part of a whole in the Vehicle Damage result, since according to the sentence structure that's what includes the HP loss.

**mortetvie**

You fail to realize that the sales tax arises because of the ticket being sold, not because of the price necessarily so that argument fails.

Also, your logical breakdown is not necessarily correct because you are assuming c is part of B.

And where you talk about include, the problem is what include is referring to, not its definition.

You have not proven anything =/.

**kirsanth**

mortetvie wrote:
And where you talk about include, the problem is what include is referring to, not its definition.

Thankfully this is not actually confusing - it is just upsetting.

**mortetvie**

kirsanth wrote:
mortetvie wrote:
And where you talk about include, the problem is what include is referring to, not its definition.
Thankfully this is not actually confusing - it is just upsetting.

Upsetting in what way? As I pointed out earlier, it does not necessarily refer to the immobilized result as being the cause of the HP being taken away, it may also be referring to the terrain test. Simply because the terrain test did not refer to the loss of the HP before is no basis for your argument. If anything, they are clarifying that the failed terrain test DOES cause the HP because the terrain test is what causes the immobilized result.

**rigeld2**

mortetvie wrote:
You fail to realize that the sales tax arises because of the ticket being sold, not because of the price necessarily so that argument fails.

Break the sentence down.
The sales tax cannot be part of the ticket sold.
The sales tax cannot be part of the price.
The sales tax is part of the $15.75 which is what includes the sales tax.
Argument doesn't fail.

Also, your logical breakdown is not necessarily correct because you are assuming c is part of B.

No, I'm not assuming that - the sentence says that by definition of the word include.

And where you talk about include, the problem is what include is referring to, not its definition.

And the way include is used in this sentence can only be referring to what immediately preceded it. Which is the immobilised damage result.

How about instead of saying I'm wrong if you disagree, you post some support for yourself?
Something to discredit what I've said?
All you're saying right now is "You're wrong." I've backed up what I'm saying with examples and definitions, and cited the FAQs/BRB where required. Please do likewise.

**mortetvie**

Seriously? You apparently dismiss everything I've written because I disagree with you... I say you are wrong based on simple logical principals. You are basically arguing 1+1=3 and I am trying to use basic math to show you where you are wrong...if you don't want to follow the rules of logic then don't use them please.

Just looking at your example, I said the sales tax only comes into play BECAUSE there is a ticket to be sold in the first place. No ticket means no sales tax, that just logically follows.

Apply that to the FAQ, no dangerous terrain test, or penetration roll, no missing hull point.

**rigeld2**

mortetvie wrote:
Seriously? You apparently dismiss everything I've written because I disagree with you...

No, actually - I've taken everything you've written and brought something up to prove it wrong. Not just dismissing you offhand.

I say you are wrong based on simple logical principals. You are basically arguing 1+1=3 and I am trying to use basic math to show you where you are wrong...if you don't want to follow the rules of logic then don't use them please.

Except you haven't proven me wrong based on simple logical principals.

Just looking at your example, I said the sales tax only comes into play BECAUSE there is a ticket to be sold in the first place. No ticket means no sales tax, that just logically follows.

I agree with that.
What you're trying to say, however, is that if I acquire a ticket in a different way (say... a friend buys it and gives it to me) that the sales tax ceases to be included in the $15.75. Which is false.

Apply that to the FAQ, no dangerous terrain test, or penetration roll, no missing hull point.

No. Since the Hull Point is tied to the Immobilise result, any Immobilise result will cause a hull point.

Let's try this:
Do you agree that in the DT Errata the Hull Point damage is tied to the Immobilise result? Ignoring other ways of getting Immobilised or lose hull points - that Errata alone.

**WhoopieMonster**

No, I believe the loss of the hull point is directly caused by the DT test failure.

**FireBlade**

Just to point this out... Everyone is arguing about the errata regarding the DT test and what order the hull point loss is applied etc. etc... But... No one has made a good case as to why this should apply to the Drop Pod in the first place. It BEGINS the game Immobalized. It never suffered an immobalization result...

Best case scenario you could argue that before the game began, they were supposed to start with 4 HP, but since someone botched up the job they start with 3 HP and are immobalized, and all of that is included in their profile.

**mortetvie**

WhoopieMonster wrote:
No, I believe the loss of the hull point is directly caused by the DT test failure.

Exactly... ALL the FAQ says is that failed terrain test (FTT)=immobilized (I) result+loss of HP(HP). You can't say because FTT=I+HP that I=HP, that doesn't make sense logically or mathematically...

**rigeld2**

FireBlade wrote:
Just to point this out... Everyone is arguing about the errata regarding the DT test and what order the hull point loss is applied etc. etc... But... No one has made a good case as to why this should apply to the Drop Pod in the first place. It BEGINS the game Immobalized. It never suffered an immobalization result...

Read the BT Errata. If you think it doesn't apply cross codex you're fooling yourself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mortetvie wrote:
WhoopieMonster wrote:
No, I believe the loss of the hull point is directly caused by the DT test failure.

Exactly... ALL the FAQ says is that failed terrain test (FTT)=immobilized (I) result+loss of HP(HP). You can't say because FTT=I+HP that I=HP, that doesn't make sense logically or mathematically...

I'm not. FTT=I. I=HP+TADR (the actual damage result).
Therefore when you suffer I you suffer HP+TADR.

**mortetvie**

See that is where you are wrong, you can't say I=HP+TADR because that is not how the FAQ is worded... Your whole premise is based on the assumption that I=HP+TADR so you can't say in conclusion I=HP+TADR.... You are basing your argument on your conclusion.

The failed terrain test causes the immobilized result, including the loss of a HP. You are saying FTT=I and I=HP but that is not supported logically in the FAQ.

Once again, if everyone says the HP is linked and referring to the Immobilized result,then it MUST read to say FTT=I+HP. The comma is basically like a + sign.

**rigeld2**

mortetvie wrote:
See that is where you are wrong, you can't say I=HP+TADR because that is not how the FAQ is worded... Your whole premise is based on the assumption that I-HP+TADR so you can't say in conclusion I=HP+TADR.... You are basing your argument on your conclusion.

The failed terrain test causes the immobilized result, including the loss of a HP. You are saying FTT=I and I=HP but that is not supported logically in the FAQ.

In the DTT FAQ it says that the Hull Point is included in the Immobilized damage result.
Therefore I=HP+TADR.
2 includes 1. 2=1+1.

You can't say "The DTTF includes the hull point loss" because a) there's no basis for it b) sentence structure precludes it.

**Kevin949**

FireBlade wrote:
Just to point this out... Everyone is arguing about the errata regarding the DT test and what order the hull point loss is applied etc. etc... But... No one has made a good case as to why this should apply to the Drop Pod in the first place. It BEGINS the game Immobalized. It never suffered an immobalization result...

Best case scenario you could argue that before the game began, they were supposed to start with 4 HP, but since someone botched up the job they start with 3 HP and are immobalized, and all of that is included in their profile.

If it begins immobilized then you can't bring it on from reserves and it's destroyed at the end of the game.

No, it's not immobilized at the beginning of the game, it suffers an immobilized vehicle damage result the moment your deep strike is resolved.

If you posit that a drop pod (of all things) is supposed to have the same HP as a monolith or land raider....well I don't know what to think or say without breaking a tenet.

**mortetvie**

rigeld2 wrote:
mortetvie wrote:
See that is where you are wrong, you can't say I=HP+TADR because that is not how the FAQ is worded... Your whole premise is based on the assumption that I-HP+TADR so you can't say in conclusion I=HP+TADR.... You are basing your argument on your conclusion.

The failed terrain test causes the immobilized result, including the loss of a HP. You are saying FTT=I and I=HP but that is not supported logically in the FAQ.

In the DTT FAQ it says that the Hull Point is included in the Immobilized damage result.
Therefore I=HP+TADR.
2 includes 1. 2=1+1.

You can't say "The DTTF includes the hull point loss" because a) there's no basis for it b) sentence structure precludes it.

Where you say the HP is included in the immobilized result, that is where you are reading into it and assuming this. That is what my contention is in this whole thread. You have no logical basis for concluding that the immobilized CAUSES the HP or that a HP is the natural or direct result of the Immobilized result. How can you guys not see this?

**rigeld2**

mortetvie wrote:
Where you say the HP is included in the immobilized result, that is where you are reading into it and assuming this. That is what my contention is in this whole thread. You have no logical basis for concluding that the immobilized CAUSES the HP or that a HP is the natural or direct result of the Immobilized result. How can you guys not see this?

I absolutely have a logical basis.
The DTT Errata tells me that the HP is included in the immobilised result. Basic sentence structure says that.

**jms40k**

I find it funny people are throwing the word "logic" around while both are committing egregious logical fallacies

It is pretty clear from RAW, that no such HP loss occurs. Let's now consider RAI for a minute. Is the Drop Pod intended to lose a hull point? I'm not so sure. Since there is no other way to deploy a drop pod, wouldn't it be more reasonable for GW to simply errata its entry to simply state: "The Drop Pod is immobile after arriving from Deep Strike." and have the drop pod start with 2 hull points? What possible reason could they have for creating a convoluted application of various rules?

**rigeld2**

jms40k wrote:
I find it funny people are throwing the word "logic" around while both are committing egregious logical fallacies

Point them out?

It is pretty clear from RAW, that no such HP loss occurs.

Obviously not. Would you mind responding to what I've said?

Let's now consider RAI for a minute. Is the Drop Pod intended to lose a hull point? I'm not so sure. Since there is no other way to deploy a drop pod, wouldn't it be more reasonable for GW to simply errata its entry to simply state: "The Drop Pod is immobile after arriving from Deep Strike." and have the drop pod start with 2 hull points? What possible reason could they have for creating a convoluted application of various rules?

Does it matter what the reason is? Are you going to pretend this is the most convoluted thing they've done?

**Kevin949**

jms40k wrote:
I find it funny people are throwing the word "logic" around while both are committing egregious logical fallacies

It is pretty clear from RAW, that no such HP loss occurs. Let's now consider RAI for a minute. Is the Drop Pod intended to lose a hull point? I'm not so sure. Since there is no other way to deploy a drop pod, wouldn't it be more reasonable for GW to simply errata its entry to simply state: "The Drop Pod is immobile after arriving from Deep Strike." and have the drop pod start with 2 hull points? What possible reason could they have for creating a convoluted application of various rules?

You say that so emphatically as if you've decided and that's that.

**mortetvie**

rigeld2 wrote:
mortetvie wrote:
Where you say the HP is included in the immobilized result, that is where you are reading into it and assuming this. That is what my contention is in this whole thread. You have no logical basis for concluding that the immobilized CAUSES the HP or that a HP is the natural or direct result of the Immobilized result. How can you guys not see this?

I absolutely have a logical basis.
The DTT Errata tells me that the HP is included in the immobilised result. Basic sentence structure says that.

You don't realize that the HP is included WITH the result not IN it. The HP occurs BECAUSE of the failed terrain test not BECAUSE of the immobilizes result. You are twisting the sentence to read how you want.

**rigeld2**

mortetvie wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
mortetvie wrote:
Where you say the HP is included in the immobilized result, that is where you are reading into it and assuming this. That is what my contention is in this whole thread. You have no logical basis for concluding that the immobilized CAUSES the HP or that a HP is the natural or direct result of the Immobilized result. How can you guys not see this?

I absolutely have a logical basis.
The DTT Errata tells me that the HP is included in the immobilised result. Basic sentence structure says that.

You don't realize that the HP is included WITH the result not IN it. The HP occurs BECAUSE of the failed terrain test not BECAUSE of the immobilizes result. You are twisting the sentence to read how you want.

You're asserting that the HP is included with the DTT. The sentence doesnt read that way.

**A Town Called Malus**

mortetvie wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
mortetvie wrote:
Where you say the HP is included in the immobilized result, that is where you are reading into it and assuming this. That is what my contention is in this whole thread. You have no logical basis for concluding that the immobilized CAUSES the HP or that a HP is the natural or direct result of the Immobilized result. How can you guys not see this?

I absolutely have a logical basis.
The DTT Errata tells me that the HP is included in the immobilised result. Basic sentence structure says that.

You don't realize that the HP is included WITH the result not IN it. The HP occurs BECAUSE of the failed terrain test not BECAUSE of the immobilizes result. You are twisting the sentence to read how you want.

No he isn't. The sentence is "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point."
The sentence structure clearly shows that losing the hull point is an effect of suffering an immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table.

If losing a hull point were part of failing the dangerous terrain test separate to the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table it would read "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately loses a hull point and suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table."

It does not and so therefore losing the Hull Point is a part of the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table.

**mortetvie**

If you look at the change from the original, sentence, they are simply clarifying and adding on the fact that the failed terrain test causes a HP worth of damage in addition to the immobilized result. It always caused an immobilized result, the clarification was that the failed test also causes the HP loss. The whole question is what is the effect of the dangerous terrain test on the vehicle? Immobilized and loss of a HP.

IS the FAQ addressing if the immobilized result causes the HP? No, it is not, it is focusing on the terrain test being failed. Therefore, that is all you can get out of this sentence.

Does the vehicle suffer a hull point also because it is immobilized? If yes, then you guys are right. If the bigger question is does it suffer a hull point because it is immobilize from a dangerous terrain test, then the focus should be on the loss of the HP because of the terrain test, not immobilized result.

**insaniak**

jms40k wrote:
Since there is no other way to deploy a drop pod, wouldn't it be more reasonable for GW to simply errata its entry to simply state: "The Drop Pod is immobile after arriving from Deep Strike." and have the drop pod start with 2 hull points? What possible reason could they have for creating a convoluted application of various rules?

How is it convoluted? The Drop Pod is deploye damaged. When a vehicle is damaged, it loses a Hull Point. Not really that complicated.

Assuming that it loses a Hull Point on deployment is no more unreasonable than the fact that it deploys damaged in the first place... which is how it has functioned for 3 editions now. The only thing that has changed is the addition of Hull Points to the damage process.

**rigeld2**

mortetvie wrote:
If you look at the change from the original, sentence, they are simply clarifying and adding on the fact that the failed terrain test causes a HP worth of damage in addition to the immobilized result. It always caused an immobilized result, the clarification was that the failed test also causes the HP loss. The whole question is what is the effect of the dangerous terrain test on the vehicle? Immobilized and loss of a HP.

IS the FAQ addressing if the immobilized result causes the HP? No, it is not, it is focusing on the terrain test being failed. Therefore, that is all you can get out of this sentence.

Does the vehicle suffer a hull point also because it is immobilized? If yes, then you guys are right. If the bigger question is does it suffer a hull point because it is immobilize from a dangerous terrain test, then the focus should be on the loss of the HP because of the terrain test, not immobilized result.

It's not additional. If it was they'd use the word additional. That's not the word they used. They used including.
And it's an errata, not an FAQ, so it's a change of rules.

**A Town Called Malus**

mortetvie wrote:
If you look at the change from the original, sentence, they are simply clarifying and adding on the fact that the failed terrain test causes a HP worth of damage in addition to the immobilized result. It always caused an immobilized result, the clarification was that the failed test also causes the HP loss. The whole question is what is the effect of the dangerous terrain test on the vehicle? Immobilized and loss of a HP.

IS the FAQ addressing if the immobilized result causes the HP? No, it is not, it is focusing on the terrain test being failed. Therefore, that is all you can get out of this sentence.

Does the vehicle suffer a hull point also because it is immobilized? If yes, then you guys are right. If the bigger question is does it suffer a hull point because it is immobilize from a dangerous terrain test, then the focus should be on the loss of the HP because of the terrain test, not immobilized result.

Wrong. Please re-read my post. If the hull point were in addition to the Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table then it would not be worded as it is. Its current structure indicates that the hull point loss is included in the effect of suffering an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table.

Also, re-read the Vehicle Damage table, specifically the Immobilised result.

Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle instead remove an additional Hull Point.

Notice the word additional. Why is it there? If suffering an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table does not already directly cause the loss of a Hull Point then it is not needed, since there wasn't an original hull point loss from rolling an Immobilised result for the second hull point loss to be in addition to. If the hull point were not a part of suffering an Immobilised result then the rule could just say:

Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle instead remove a Hull Point.