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.

Malus,the immobilized result only causes you to lose an additional HP if it was previously immobilized, so looking at the actual result itself doesn't add you your argument at all.

Seriously, this is coming down to a he said she said thing and rather than rehashing everything over and over again for people who don't want to agree I'm just going to wait for the FAQ and go from there.

Again, all I was saying is that you can't say it suffers a HP BECAUSE of the immobilized result. Only because of the dangerous terrain test which causes the immobilized result based on the language there.

Anything else is reading into the sentence or drawing an inference from another place. That much is plainly evident so I don't need to try to keep trying to convince someone that 1+1=2 when they are not willing to see the obvious.

RAW=HP loss is because of the failed terrain test, that is all I am arguing and maintaining. You guys are saying immobilized=hp loss and that is not RAW. Your only line of logic is that because the immobilized result from a pen roll and now a failed dangerous terrain test are linked with the loss of a HP, a deepstriking drop pod that is immobilized should also lose a HP and that doesn't necessarily follow.

 mortetvie wrote:
Malus,the immobilized result only causes you to lose an additional HP if it was previously immobilized, so looking at the actual result itself doesn't add you your argument at all.

Seriously, this is coming down to a he said she said thing and rather than rehashing everything over and over again for people who don't want to agree I'm just going to wait for the FAQ and go from there.

Again, all I was saying is that you can't say it suffers a HP BECAUSE of the immobilized result. Only because of the dangerous terrain test which causes the immobilized result based on the language there.

Anything else is reading into the sentence or drawing an inference from another place. That much is plainly evident so I don't need to try to keep trying to convince someone that 1+1=2 when they are not willing to see the obvious.

RAW=HP loss is because of the failed terrain test, that is all I am arguing and maintaining. You guys are saying immobilized=hp loss and that is not RAW.

Regarding your last sentence: If that's what you think we're saying then you haven't been paying attention. The damage outcome DOES NOT MATTER, the fact the vehicle suffered a damage result is what causes the HP loss. If the drop pod rules said it came into play as a stunned vehicle exactly as if suffering the result from the vehicle damage table, I'd still be saying the same thing.

If they wanted to, GW could just say that drop pods can never move more than 0 inches after deep striking.

 mortetvie wrote:
Malus,the immobilized result only causes you to lose an additional HP if it was previously immobilized, so looking at the actual result itself doesn't add you your argument at all.

Yes it does. If suffering an Immobilised result does not cause you to lose a Hull Point then how can you lose an additional one for suffering an Immobilised result when you are already Immobilised? You aren't suffering an additional Hull Point loss, you're just suffering a Hull Point loss.

Malus, the initial immobilized result does not cause the HP, it is the fact that you rolled a penetrating hit on the vehicle, regardless of immobilized result. If a subsequent result is rolled, then and only then does it cause the loss of an additional HP.

There is a good argument in that any damaged vehicle loses a HP but I think the main thing is that in this particular case, it has not been clarified if it should lose a HP for being immobilized when it deepstrikes or not, so therefore you can't say "because a vehicle suffers a HP from failed terrain tests or penetrating hits that it should for being damaged in some other way".

If anything, the player base can be a form of judiciary, they can interpret rules and so on as best as they can, but they should not extend the meaning of certain rules, that should be left to the legislature, which is GW. We must know their intent and we don't have that ATM. We need to wait for the FAQ to make the call you guys are proposing to make.

 mortetvie wrote:
Malus, the initial immobilized result does not cause the HP, it is the fact that you rolled a penetrating hit on the vehicle, regardless of immobilized result. If a subsequent result is rolled, then and only then does it cause the loss of an additional HP.

There is a good argument in that any damaged vehicle loses a HP but I think the main thing is that in this particular case, it has not been clarified if it should lose a HP for being immobilized when it deepstrikes or not, so therefore you can't say "because a vehicle suffers a HP from failed terrain tests or penetrating hits that it should for being damaged in some other way".

If anything, the player base can be a form of judiciary, they can interpret rules and so on as best as they can, but they should not extend the meaning of certain rules, that should be left to the legislature, which is GW. We must know their intent and we don't have that ATM. We need to wait for the FAQ to make the call you guys are proposing to make.

If you want to discuss intent go ahead.
2=1+1. If I give you 2, is 1 included?

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Point them out?

Meant to be taken toungue-in-cheek. Once logic is brought up, things can get pretty pedantic. If you want a few specifics:

1.) There is a causation fallacy that arises when people start making the claim that "because Y is included (or present) whenever there is X, X must cause Y." Just because two examples of an immobilized result otherwise "include" hull point damage does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that immobilization causes hull point damage.

2.) Just because someone does not think an argument is logically valid, does not make the conclusion of that argument wrong.

Kevin949 wrote:
You say that so emphatically as if you've decided and that's that.

I have decided based on the fact that, RAW, it does not say "When a drop pod deploys, it loses a hull point," anywhere. Many of the individuals in this very thread have agreed, even if they think that RAI, a hull point should be lost.

Insaniak wrote:
How is it convoluted? The Drop Pod is deploye damaged.

Because there is no reason to have the drop pod deployed damaged whatsoever. If it is designed to remove a hull point, why start with that many hull points to begin with? Why not start with less and deploy with the simple extra rule that it is deployed immobile? There would be no way to avoid this type of deployment anyway.

jms40k wrote:
1.) There is a causation fallacy that arises when people start making the claim that "because Y is included (or present) whenever there is X, X must cause Y." Just because two examples of an immobilized result otherwise "include" hull point damage does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that immobilization causes hull point damage.

Despite the fact that the rule literally says that the hull point damage is included?

I'm not making a leap of logic, I'm reading the words GW wrote.

Meant to be taken toungue-in-cheek. Once logic is brought up, things can get pretty pedantic. If you want a few specifics:

1.) There is a causation fallacy that arises when people start making the claim that "because Y is included (or present) whenever there is X, X must cause Y." Just because two examples of an immobilized result otherwise "include" hull point damage does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that immobilization causes hull point damage.

2.) Just because someone does not think an argument is logically valid, does not make the conclusion of that argument wrong.

This is what I've been saying all along. I was just attacking the way they got to their conclusion; that what they were arguing did not necessarily follow from the evidence.

You guys ARE making a leap of logic by saying just because a hull point is lost in these circumstances, it must also be lost in this one. It does not necessarily follow that just because you suffer a damage result on the table that you lose a hull point. The source of the result is important as well and you can't rule that out of the equation, which you are.

So there are times when 2 will not include 1?

Using English how can you attach the "including the loss of a Hull Point" to anything in that sentence other than the immobilize result?

rigeld2 wrote:

jms40k wrote:
1.) There is a causation fallacy that arises when people start making the claim that "because Y is included (or present) whenever there is X, X must cause Y." Just because two examples of an immobilized result otherwise "include" hull point damage does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that immobilization causes hull point damage.

Despite the fact that the rule literally says that the hull point damage is included?

I'm not making a leap of logic, I'm reading the words GW wrote.

Nope, it includes the hull point damage then. There is no GW phrase that says: "Immobilization causes hull point damage." I understand your logic, and it may very well be what GW meant; that's the problem with language. I was just tongue-in-cheek arguing "logically"

No, but there is a phrase that says you suffer an immobilization result, including the hull point damage.

I'm still at a loss trying to figure out how that means anything but that an Immob. Damage Result includes a Hull Point loss.

jms40k wrote:
Because there is no reason to have the drop pod deployed damaged whatsoever.

And yet it does deploy damaged, and has done since it was introduced in 4th edition.

If it is designed to remove a hull point, why start with that many hull points to begin with? Why not start with less and deploy with the simple extra rule that it is deployed immobile?

Because doing it this way doesn't require an extra rule. You give the Pod one more Hull point than it needs, and just treat it as suffering an Immobilised result when you deploy it.

GW could have introduced a 'Stationary' vehicle class, and rules as to how it works. Instead, they just gave the pod an immediate Immobilised result.

In 4th edition, that meant that each Pod in your army automatically awarded half its cost to your opponent in Victory Points.
In 5th edition it meant that a further Immobilised result took the weapon off, and so meant that at least a third of the time the Pod could weather one less Penetration than other vehicles.
In 6th edition, it means (or at least, I very, very strongly suspect that it will mean) that the Pod automatically loses a Hull point on deployment, because damage to vehicles means dropping a Hull point. Which is only a problem if you view it as an unintentional nerf, rather than simply a part of the design of the vehicle. The Pod has always been damaged on deployment... it's simply the specific effects of this that have changed between edition.

rigeld2 wrote:
So there are times when 2 will not include 1?

Using English how can you attach the "including the loss of a Hull Point" to anything in that sentence other than the immobilize result?

Using English, how can you disregard the fact that the immobilized result and subsequent HP damage comes from the failed terrain test? That is the difference, what causes the damage result determines if there is a HP loss or not as far as RAW. There is nothing that says an immobilized result regardless of source causes the loss of a HP. Conversely, there is nothing that says any roll on the damage chart causes the loss of a HP. Therefore you can't say immobilized=loss of hull point in and of itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

jms40k wrote:
Because there is no reason to have the drop pod deployed damaged whatsoever.

And yet it does deploy damaged, and has done since it was introduced in 4th edition.

If it is designed to remove a hull point, why start with that many hull points to begin with? Why not start with less and deploy with the simple extra rule that it is deployed immobile?

Because doing it this way doesn't require an extra rule. You give the Pod one more Hull point than it needs, and just treat it as suffering an Immobilised result when you deploy it.

GW could have introduced a 'Stationary' vehicle class, and rules as to how it works. Instead, they just gave the pod an immediate Immobilised result.

In 4th edition, that meant that each Pod in your army automatically awarded half its cost to your opponent in Victory Points.
In 5th edition it meant that a further Immobilised result took the weapon off.
In 6th edition, it means (or at least, I very, very strongly suspect that it will mean) that the Pod automatically loses a Hull point on deployment, because damage to vehicles means dropping a Hull point. Which is only a problem if you view it as an unintentional nerf, rather than simply a part of the design of the vehicle. The Pod has always been damaged on deployment... it's simply the specific effects of this that have changed between edition.

You and I are arguing about two completely different things here. I'm not even disagreeing with you, I'm just saying strictly RAW, you can't draw the conclusion you are.

 insaniak wrote:

jms40k wrote:
Because there is no reason to have the drop pod deployed damaged whatsoever.

And yet it does deploy damaged, and has done since it was introduced in 4th edition.

If it is designed to remove a hull point, why start with that many hull points to begin with? Why not start with less and deploy with the simple extra rule that it is deployed immobile?

Because doing it this way doesn't require an extra rule. You give the Pod one more Hull point than it needs, and just treat it as suffering an Immobilised result when you deploy it.

GW could have introduced a 'Stationary' vehicle class, and rules as to how it works. Instead, they just gave the pod an immediate Immobilised result.

In 4th edition, that meant that each Pod in your army automatically awarded half its cost to your opponent in Victory Points.
In 5th edition it meant that a further Immobilised result took the weapon off, and so meant that at least a third of the time the Pod could weather one less Penetration than other vehicles.
In 6th edition, it means (or at least, I very, very strongly suspect that it will mean) that the Pod automatically loses a Hull point on deployment, because damage to vehicles means dropping a Hull point. Which is only a problem if you view it as an unintentional nerf, rather than simply a part of the design of the vehicle. The Pod has always been damaged on deployment... it's simply the specific effects of this that have changed between edition.

You may be right, and I'm not saying that GW has ever done "simple rules are better." It just seems like a very round-about way of doing things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I might also add that they did create a new rule to handle this situation:

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

It could simply be:

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the battle. This effect cannot be removed in any way.

and then just have one less hull point on the reference tables .

jms40k wrote:
It could simply be:

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the battle. This effect cannot be removed in any way.

and then just have one less hull point on the reference tables .

And then what happens when you roll an immobilised result on the damage table?

 mortetvie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So there are times when 2 will not include 1?

Using English how can you attach the "including the loss of a Hull Point" to anything in that sentence other than the immobilize result?

Using English, how can you disregard the fact that the immobilized result and subsequent HP damage comes from the failed terrain test? That is the difference, what causes the damage result determines if there is a HP loss or not as far as RAW. There is nothing that says an immobilized result regardless of source causes the loss of a HP. Conversely, there is nothing that says any roll on the damage chart causes the loss of a HP. Therefore you can't say immobilized=loss of hull point in and of itself.

A) The immobilized result can only be equal to the result of rolling a 5 on the damage result chart. We know this because it's referred to as a Damage Result, and there's no other way to know what it means without looking there. So we know this Immobilise isn't special.

B )We also know that this immobilize includes a Hull Point loss.

C) We also know that a drop pod counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilization result.

D) the damage result for Immob on rolling a 5.

C = D = A = B therefore C = B.

It's all the same immobilize - you're trying to treat the DTT one as special with nothing implying it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

jms40k wrote:
It could simply be:

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the battle. This effect cannot be removed in any way.

and then just have one less hull point on the reference tables .

And then what happens when you roll an immobilised result on the damage table?

And even then - it could be. But it isn't.

 insaniak wrote:

jms40k wrote:
It could simply be:

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the battle. This effect cannot be removed in any way.

and then just have one less hull point on the reference tables .

And then what happens when you roll an immobilised result on the damage table?

Nuh-uh, you can't argue for the english language interpretation and then disregard it later . If you want to interpret "including..." to mean that it is always included, you can easily read "already immobilized" to include immobile .

All I'm saying is that relying on damage results to cause things to be immobile seems like the long way around.

Rigeld...

Your reasoning is all off here dude, you don't get immobilized result ONLY from rolling a 5 on the table. You also get it from failed terrain tests which no roll is made. Also, the HP damage from any penetration roll happens BECAUSE of the penetration roll itself, not necessarily any result in and of itself.

So your a=b=c... is a big logical fallacy because a does not NECESSARILY equal b, but it COULD equal b... big difference. You are saying something could equal something else therefore it does and that is what I am trying to point out.

rigeld2 wrote:
[
And even then - it could be. But it isn't.

Yep, you're right. And so the debate continues. It could also say "every time a vehicle is immobilized, it suffers a hull point loss." But it doesn't. Neither does this:

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”

Necessitate that interpretation. If they are trying to clarify that immobilized results always lead to a hull point loss, regardless of their source (pen, DTT, drop pod assault, etc.), this was the wrong place to errata it in.

 mortetvie wrote:
Your reasoning is all off here dude, you don't get immobilized result ONLY from rolling a 5 on the table. You also get it from failed terrain tests which no roll is made. Also, the HP damage from any penetration roll happens BECAUSE of the penetration roll itself, not necessarily any result in and of itself.

The immobilized result from a DTT must be the same as the one when rolling a 5 for pen. Do you agree?

jms40k wrote:
Nuh-uh, you can't argue for the english language interpretation and then disregard it later . If you want to interpret "including..." to mean that it is always included, you can easily read "already immobilized" to include immobile

Sorry, but... what...?

I suspect that you're confusing my posts with someone else's.

ll I'm saying is that relying on damage results to cause things to be immobile seems like the long way around.

Potentially... but it's how the pod has always worked. Or at least, for as long as it has been a physical unit, rather than just a way of deep striking Marines (which is how it started out).

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Your reasoning is all off here dude, you don't get immobilized result ONLY from rolling a 5 on the table. You also get it from failed terrain tests which no roll is made. Also, the HP damage from any penetration roll happens BECAUSE of the penetration roll itself, not necessarily any result in and of itself.

The immobilized result from a DTT must be the same as the one when rolling a 5 for pen. Do you agree?

Yes, but all the immobilized result says is that the vehicle can't move, not that it suffers a HP. What I don't agree with is that because an immobilized result from a DTT and penetrating roll cause the loss of a HP, an immobilized result from a drop pod entering play must also cause the loss of a HP. This latter distinction does not necessarily follow which is what you don't understand. This is because the loss of the HP comes from the failed terrain test or penetrating hit which you conveniently fail to address in your reasoning.

 mortetvie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Your reasoning is all off here dude, you don't get immobilized result ONLY from rolling a 5 on the table. You also get it from failed terrain tests which no roll is made. Also, the HP damage from any penetration roll happens BECAUSE of the penetration roll itself, not necessarily any result in and of itself.

The immobilized result from a DTT must be the same as the one when rolling a 5 for pen. Do you agree?

Yes,

Do you agree that, at least in the DTT errata, the Hull Point loss is included in the Immobilise damage result?

but all the immobilized result says is that the vehicle can't move, not that it suffers a HP. What I don't agree with is that because an immobilized result from a DTT and penetrating roll cause the loss of a HP, an immobilized result from a drop pod entering play must also cause the loss of a HP. This latter distinction does not necessarily follow which is what you don't understand. This is because the loss of the HP comes from the failed terrain test or penetrating hit which you conveniently fail to address in your reasoning.

You're still trying to say the Hp loss is included in the DTT failure when it is impossible to read the sentence that way.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

That is a good catch too, nice.



I feel bad for missing this now.

I'm just going to facepalm and see myself out of this debate...

It's degenerated to people to using their conclusion as the basis for their argument rather than actually proving their conclusion.

The argument that an immobilized result causes a HP is based on a logical fallacy, plain and simple.

"affirming the consequent -- A fallacy of the form "if A, then B; B, therefore A". Example: "If Smith testifies against Jones in court, Jones will be found guilty. Jones was found guilty. Therefore, Smith must have testified against him." {Jones could have been found guilty without Smith's testimony.} "
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/logical%20fallacies.htm#affirm-consequent

In this example, you guys are saying:
if a vehicle suffered a penetrating hit with an immobilized result, it suffers a HP.
If a vehicle fails a dangerous terrain test and becomes immobilized, it suffers a HP
therefore:
A vehicle suffers an immobilized result, therefore it must also lose a HP.

Just because the loss of a HP comes in conjunction with an immobilized result in the first 2 examples does not mean it ALWAYS comes in conjunction with an immobilized result.

Then you haven't understood what I've said at all. Congratulations.

*I re-phrase* : I understand the logic and your conclusions, but going further, this logic will also leads to " Any rules resulting to shaking/stunning/weapon destroyed includes the loss of a Hull Point" as well, since they are also valid results of the damage table.

Not sure about exact codex / BRB rules wordings but as far as I remember
- once you fire a one-shot missile, afterwards it is considered as a 'weapon destroyed'
- if your mekboy roll "1" on the repair roll, the vehicule is shaken? ( stunned ?)

In these cases, the vehicule loses a Hull Point ? I doubt so.
(OK, my examples are probably not the best ones, but I am pretty sure there are some special abilities or wargear that are worded like " treat the vehicule as shaken/stunned/weapon destroyed")

So Obviously this FAQ - and the loss of the hull point- is specific to "failing dangerous terrain", not to the Immobilized result.

Anyway, in game I will not claim a hull point if my opponent DS a drop pod on the board , until GW re-FAQ /clarify that again.

This is a tricky one.... I thought it was going to be some baby trying to get out of of dieing so bad from a Drop Pod, or a cheap way to gain a point to point advantage.

If, I were to make the call, I would refer to the part "Counts As."

Why even use those words in any of the rules.

If it was meant to take a hit then it would say something like : When drop pod enters battle, it takes a immobilizing hit... maybe it suffers an immobilizing result and looses a hull point.

But it says treated as, counts as.... and to me it makes no since to loose wounds before play. If it scatters and goes in a no no place sure, that is in play. If it lands in terrain, then sure, as it has landed. Same with any DS unit right?

I see it as mobile until it lands. If I were to make the call, it lands and becomes immobilized without damage. then when you hit it, if you immobilized it a second time, this would cause a weapon damaged, and loose a haul point.

If it lands in terrain I would see it as moving until it lands. So it would only take a single damage on a dangerous terrain impact if it fails the save. As for loosing 3 hull points, that is just silly. Like it just falls from the sky and brakes into piece in rubble, but on a road it lands just fine. Its the year 40,0000 not 400

 Adrian Fue Fue wrote:
If, I were to make the call, I would refer to the part "Counts As."

Why even use those words in any of the rules.

Because nothing has actually happened to the pod to cause damage to it. It just counts as if it has.

But counting as if you have been immobilised is effectively the same as being immobilised... otherwise, you're not counting as immobilised.

... then when you hit it, if you immobilized it a second time, this would cause a weapon damaged, ...

The second immobilised doesn't do that in 6th edition.

The drop pod is meant to be immobile, so RAI it shouldn't lose a HP. An overly strict RAW point of view may give grounds for an argument, but with an overly strict RAW point of view half of the rules break down...