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:

 beigeknight wrote:
I skimmed it, so I'll give you that one. However, if a drop pod does not fail a DTT or does not suffer a glancing or pen hit then there's still no permission to remove a hull point. Does that make sense?

Please read the thread.

I assume you're referring to the idea that a vehicle failing a DTT and losing a hull point (per the FAQ) is the same as a drop pod that "counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" yes? Because I disagree. If a Drop pod were to fall into terrain and fail it's DTT, then yes it would remove a hull point. If not, then there's no DTT, there is no loss of a hull point, and it counts as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result(which says nothing about removing a hull point, unless it suffers another immobilized result).

If all you wanted was for me to re-read the thread, then well-played to you I guess. I feel my point still stands.

 beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
I skimmed it, so I'll give you that one. However, if a drop pod does not fail a DTT or does not suffer a glancing or pen hit then there's still no permission to remove a hull point. Does that make sense?

Please read the thread.

I assume you're referring to the idea that a vehicle failing a DTT and losing a hull point (per the FAQ) is the same as a drop pod that "counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" yes? Because I disagree. If a Drop pod were to fall into terrain and fail it's DTT, then yes it would remove a hull point. If not, then there's no DTT, there is no loss of a hull point, and it counts as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result(which says nothing about removing a hull point, unless it suffers another immobilized result).

If all you wanted was for me to re-read the thread, then well-played to you I guess. I feel my point still stands.

You said you skimmed it and posted something that has already been brought up - multiple times by multiple people.
And no, you haven't understood my argument if that's what you took out of it.

I'm not saying that a DTT failure is the same as a pen result is the same as a drop pod falling.
I'm saying that the damage result from a DTT includes a hull point.
The damage result from a DTT must be the same as from a pen result, or any other source.
Which means that the damage result the drop pod suffers from must also include the hull point damage.

Spindlehuren wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Spindlehuren wrote:

With a dangerous terrain check, the unit has entered play and now must resolve a dangerous terrain check. It is an effect being resolved once the unit has entered play. The pod enters play has an immobilise applied to it but counted as already having the effect from a previously resolved damage result.

I'm also just using a penetrating hit as an example of an effect to be resolved and not necessarily that this is the case in the situation. Just for the record, even if the rule said it suffers an immobilise damage result when it enters play, I would still take the side that it doesn't lose a hull point.

One could simply say that the deep strike resolution (which is movement) is the effect being resolved prior to the damage result happening. And nowhere does it say the drop pod is counted as being previously immobilized or any such wording, not to be rude but on that front you're just making assumptions.

Counts as a vehicle that "HAS SUFFERED...". Past tense. Once the effect has occured the vehicle "has suffered" from an immobilised result.

You know that "has" can be both present and past tense, correct? Or more specifically, "had" is the past tense of has. Anyway, if this debate goes "clinton" then I'm going to check out. I personally don't want to get into a "what is 'has'?" debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
I skimmed it, so I'll give you that one. However, if a drop pod does not fail a DTT or does not suffer a glancing or pen hit then there's still no permission to remove a hull point. Does that make sense?

Please read the thread.

I assume you're referring to the idea that a vehicle failing a DTT and losing a hull point (per the FAQ) is the same as a drop pod that "counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" yes? Because I disagree. If a Drop pod were to fall into terrain and fail it's DTT, then yes it would remove a hull point. If not, then there's no DTT, there is no loss of a hull point, and it counts as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result(which says nothing about removing a hull point, unless it suffers another immobilized result).

If all you wanted was for me to re-read the thread, then well-played to you I guess. I feel my point still stands.

Well it's been pointed out already but it would lose 2 hull points for landing in [terrain] and failing dangerous terrain test.

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
I skimmed it, so I'll give you that one. However, if a drop pod does not fail a DTT or does not suffer a glancing or pen hit then there's still no permission to remove a hull point. Does that make sense?

Please read the thread.

I assume you're referring to the idea that a vehicle failing a DTT and losing a hull point (per the FAQ) is the same as a drop pod that "counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" yes? Because I disagree. If a Drop pod were to fall into terrain and fail it's DTT, then yes it would remove a hull point. If not, then there's no DTT, there is no loss of a hull point, and it counts as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result(which says nothing about removing a hull point, unless it suffers another immobilized result).

If all you wanted was for me to re-read the thread, then well-played to you I guess. I feel my point still stands.

You said you skimmed it and posted something that has already been brought up - multiple times by multiple people.
And no, you haven't understood my argument if that's what you took out of it.

I'm not saying that a DTT failure is the same as a pen result is the same as a drop pod falling.
I'm saying that the damage result from a DTT includes a hull point.
The damage result from a DTT must be the same as from a pen result, or any other source.
Which means that the damage result the drop pod suffers from must also include the hull point damage.

Why exactly does the damage result from a DTT need to be the same as any other source? For a vehicle failing a DTT, you are given permission to remove a hull point as a special condition for failing the DTT. Nothing in the Drop Pod rules say "including losing one hull point" and it has not been FAQ'd. What rules are you referencing?

 Kevin949 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
I skimmed it, so I'll give you that one. However, if a drop pod does not fail a DTT or does not suffer a glancing or pen hit then there's still no permission to remove a hull point. Does that make sense?

Please read the thread.

I assume you're referring to the idea that a vehicle failing a DTT and losing a hull point (per the FAQ) is the same as a drop pod that "counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" yes? Because I disagree. If a Drop pod were to fall into terrain and fail it's DTT, then yes it would remove a hull point. If not, then there's no DTT, there is no loss of a hull point, and it counts as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result(which says nothing about removing a hull point, unless it suffers another immobilized result).

If all you wanted was for me to re-read the thread, then well-played to you I guess. I feel my point still stands.

Well it's been pointed out already but it would lose 2 hull points for landing in [terrain] and failing dangerous terrain test.

I'll clarify. When I said "if not" I'm referring to a drop pod that lands in open terrain, not one that falls into terrain and passes it's DTT

 beigeknight wrote:
Why exactly does the damage result from a DTT need to be the same as any other source? For a vehicle failing a DTT, you are given permission to remove a hull point as a special condition for failing the DTT. Nothing in the Drop Pod rules say "including losing one hull point" and it has not been FAQ'd. What rules are you referencing?

No, you're not given permission to remove a hull point as a special condition for failing the DTT.
The hull point loss is included in the damage result. Meaning the Immobilized damage result includes a hull point damage.

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
Why exactly does the damage result from a DTT need to be the same as any other source? For a vehicle failing a DTT, you are given permission to remove a hull point as a special condition for failing the DTT. Nothing in the Drop Pod rules say "including losing one hull point" and it has not been FAQ'd. What rules are you referencing?

No, you're not given permission to remove a hull point as a special condition for failing the DTT.
The hull point loss is included in the damage result. Meaning the Immobilized damage result includes a hull point damage.

Well I can see why you would think that, but I don't think it's the case.

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”.

This refers to Vehicles and DTT's, not the Immobilized result as a whole. If the FAQ errata'd the rules for "Immobilized", then I would agree.

 beigeknight wrote:

I assume you're referring to the idea that a vehicle failing a DTT and losing a hull point (per the FAQ) is the same as a drop pod that "counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" yes? Because I disagree. If a Drop pod were to fall into terrain and fail it's DTT, then yes it would remove a hull point. If not, then there's no DTT, there is no loss of a hull point, and it counts as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result(which says nothing about removing a hull point, unless it suffers another immobilized result).

I'll clarify. When I said "if not" I'm referring to a drop pod that lands in open terrain, not one that falls into terrain and passes it's DTT

I was only correcting you on the part I've bolded in red, nothing else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
Why exactly does the damage result from a DTT need to be the same as any other source? For a vehicle failing a DTT, you are given permission to remove a hull point as a special condition for failing the DTT. Nothing in the Drop Pod rules say "including losing one hull point" and it has not been FAQ'd. What rules are you referencing?

No, you're not given permission to remove a hull point as a special condition for failing the DTT.
The hull point loss is included in the damage result. Meaning the Immobilized damage result includes a hull point damage.

Well I can see why you would think that, but I don't think it's the case.

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”.

This refers to Vehicles and DTT's, not the Immobilized result as a whole. If the FAQ errata'd the rules for "Immobilized", then I would agree.

If the errata said "A vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test immediately loses a hull point, it also suffers an immobilized result from the vehicle damage table" then you would have a leg to stand on. It does not, a vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test suffers a vehicle damage result of immobilization, as well as (including) losing one hull point. The structure of the sentence lends itself that the vehicle damage table result is the source of the hull point loss. The dangerous terrain test has nothing to do it, nor does the actual immobilization result.

The problem with that Kevin is that there is no mention of the loss of a hull point anywhere in the Immobilized result. We understand that you have to have some damage that usually results in a glance/pen to be able to roll on the table. But the way it is worded, the "including" is making it clear that the "hull point loss" is in addition to the immobilized result and not a normal part of the Immobilized result. Otherwise they would not have had to say it.

Overall, I think that it how they will FAQ it, is that it takes a hull point on landing. But currently there is no tie between the two, except for DT.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:

I assume you're referring to the idea that a vehicle failing a DTT and losing a hull point (per the FAQ) is the same as a drop pod that "counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" yes? Because I disagree. If a Drop pod were to fall into terrain and fail it's DTT, then yes it would remove a hull point. If not, then there's no DTT, there is no loss of a hull point, and it counts as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result(which says nothing about removing a hull point, unless it suffers another immobilized result).

I'll clarify. When I said "if not" I'm referring to a drop pod that lands in open terrain, not one that falls into terrain and passes it's DTT

I was only correcting you on the part I've bolded in red, nothing else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
Why exactly does the damage result from a DTT need to be the same as any other source? For a vehicle failing a DTT, you are given permission to remove a hull point as a special condition for failing the DTT. Nothing in the Drop Pod rules say "including losing one hull point" and it has not been FAQ'd. What rules are you referencing?

No, you're not given permission to remove a hull point as a special condition for failing the DTT.
The hull point loss is included in the damage result. Meaning the Immobilized damage result includes a hull point damage.

Well I can see why you would think that, but I don't think it's the case.

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”.

This refers to Vehicles and DTT's, not the Immobilized result as a whole. If the FAQ errata'd the rules for "Immobilized", then I would agree.

If the errata said "A vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test immediately loses a hull point, it also suffers an immobilized result from the vehicle damage table" then you would have a leg to stand on. It does not, a vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test suffers a vehicle damage result of immobilization, as well as (including) losing one hull point. The structure of the sentence lends itself that the vehicle damage table result is the source of the hull point loss. The dangerous terrain test has nothing to do it, nor does the actual immobilization result.

In spite of the fact that it was errata for VEHICLES AND DIFFICULT TERRAIN TESTS?

I'm still not convinced.

 beigeknight wrote:
Well I can see why you would think that, but I don't think it's the case.

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”.

This refers to Vehicles and DTT's, not the Immobilized result as a whole. If the FAQ errata'd the rules for "Immobilized", then I would agree.

It says that the Damage Result includes losing one hull point. There's nothing there to tie it specifically to the DTT.

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
Well I can see why you would think that, but I don't think it's the case.

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”.

This refers to Vehicles and DTT's, not the Immobilized result as a whole. If the FAQ errata'd the rules for "Immobilized", then I would agree.

It says that the Damage Result includes losing one hull point. There's nothing there to tie it specifically to the DTT.

Yea, nothing to tie it to a DTT at all.....

Fragile wrote:
The problem with that Kevin is that there is no mention of the loss of a hull point anywhere in the Immobilized result. We understand that you have to have some damage that usually results in a glance/pen to be able to roll on the table. But the way it is worded, the "including" is making it clear that the "hull point loss" is in addition to the immobilized result and not a normal part of the Immobilized result. Otherwise they would not have had to say it.

Overall, I think that it how they will FAQ it, is that it takes a hull point on landing. But currently there is no tie between the two, except for DT.

There's no loss of hull points in any of the vehicle damage results. The hull point loss is coming from suffering vehicle damage of any kind.

And no, you're moving the part of the sentence that has "including" too far back. The structure of the sentence with the comma is not meant to be properly arranged to "A vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test suffers an immobilized result including losing a hull point from the vehicle damage table." How is that proper? It may not be improper grammar but it is improper game context and convention.

The tie between the two is the entire process, not just dangerous terrain. The process of resolving a damage result. Again, the source and outcome don't matter, the resolution process is the same. Drop pods aren't free from the process of vehicle damage resolution for any reason.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
Well I can see why you would think that, but I don't think it's the case.

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”.

This refers to Vehicles and DTT's, not the Immobilized result as a whole. If the FAQ errata'd the rules for "Immobilized", then I would agree.

It says that the Damage Result includes losing one hull point. There's nothing there to tie it specifically to the DTT.

Yea, nothing to tie it to a DTT at all.....

I've bolded what you're missing. Rules can apply outside of where the rule is located. In fact, they must.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:
Well I can see why you would think that, but I don't think it's the case.

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”.

This refers to Vehicles and DTT's, not the Immobilized result as a whole. If the FAQ errata'd the rules for "Immobilized", then I would agree.

It says that the Damage Result includes losing one hull point. There's nothing there to tie it specifically to the DTT.

Yea, nothing to tie it to a DTT at all.....

I've bolded what you're missing. Rules can apply outside of where the rule is located. In fact, they must.

Ok, but then you must not pick and choose your words as I have highlighted above.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Ok, but then you must not pick and choose your words as I have highlighted above.

I'm not picking my words. That rule says that a hull point loss is included in the immobilized result. Do you dispute that?
What you're trying to do is say that the immobilize damage result from failing a DTT is different from the immobilize damage result from rolling a 5 on the pen chart.
If you agree with that, would you mind pointing out the rules for the immobilize damage result that is caused by a DTT failure?

Sure, and Armour saving throws are listed under the "Shooting Phase".

rigeld2 wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Ok, but then you must not pick and choose your words as I have highlighted above.

I'm not picking my words. That rule says that a hull point loss is included in the immobilized result. Do you dispute that?
What you're trying to do is say that the immobilize damage result from failing a DTT is different from the immobilize damage result from rolling a 5 on the pen chart.
If you agree with that, would you mind pointing out the rules for the immobilize damage result that is caused by a DTT failure?

You are picking your words. You are plucking your argument not only from the entire rule but from the entire section listed.

Does the FAQ for drop pods, INCLUDE, a hull point loss as the FAQ for failing a DTT does? No. Then it doesn't, period. That is the RAW, there is no wordsmithing that you can do to get around it.

Does the immobilized result on the damage table INCLUDE a hull point loss in its description? No. The the FAQ for failing a DTT test is including a hull point loss to the immobilized result FOR THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF FAILING A DTT.

Do you actually have anything that links the hull point loss for a failed DTT to the actual immobilized result on the damage table, other then assumption?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Do you actually have anything that links the hull point loss for a failed DTT to the actual immobilized result on the damage table, other then assumption?

Tell ya what.
We'll pretend they're unlinked.

What does the DTT Immobilized result actually do? Can you point me to rules?

rigeld2 wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Do you actually have anything that links the hull point loss for a failed DTT to the actual immobilized result on the damage table, other then assumption?

Tell ya what.
We'll pretend they're unlinked.

What does the DTT Immobilized result actually do? Can you point me to rules?

I am asking the question here,

Do you have anything that actually links the hull point loss for a failed DTT to the actual immobilized result on the damage table, other then assumption? Your argument is based upon that link, so show it.

"counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

I think the no HP loss side need to show an example of any other vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result and did not lose a hull point. Prior to the FAQ, I would point to DTT immobilized and show that it was possible for a vehicle to be immobilized and not lose a HP, but now every immobilized vehicle has lost a HP.

Tye_Informer wrote:
"counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

I think the no HP loss side need to show an example of any other vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result and did not lose a hull point. Prior to the FAQ, I would point to DTT immobilized and show that it was possible for a vehicle to be immobilized and not lose a HP, but now every immobilized vehicle has lost a HP.

Well that is pretty easy,

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 (which cannot be
repaired in any way).

Do you see a hull point loss in that rule? You might want to read into, "and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has
suffered an Immobilised damage result" as meaning that there is a hull point loss, but no where in that rule are you directed to take a hull point loss.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Do you see a hull point loss in that rule?

I don't see anything describing what an Immobilized damage result is in that rule.

I do see it in the rest of the rules how that happens and what damage results mean.
Now that includes HP loss too.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Do you have anything that actually links the hull point loss for a failed DTT to the actual immobilized result on the damage table, other then assumption? Your argument is based upon that link, so show it.

The result in the DTT is a, quote, Immobilised Damage Result, unquote. Show another Damage Result in the BRB that is Immobilised that is not on the damage table.
If you do not acknowledge that the result from the DTT errata is in fact the same as the one on the vehicle damage table you must define it another way. Since you claim it's not linked despite the fact that there's literally no other way for the rule to work, you need to show an alternate definition of the rule.

 kirsanth wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Do you see a hull point loss in that rule?

I don't see anything describing what an Immobilized damage result is in that rule.

I do see it in the rest of the rules how that happens and what damage results mean.
Now that includes HP loss too.

Actually no you don't.

With a penetrating hit, you see a hull point loss and then you roll on the damage table that can result in an immobilized result.

With a failed DTT, you are immobilized per the damage result table, including a hull point loss.

However, you are not seeing a hull point loss with the Immobile rule. You are equating the immobilized result on Immobile with the above two instances, yet are not given any direction to do so.

Does the Immobilized result on the damage table include a hull point loss? The inclusion of a hull point loss in the instance of a failed DTT is just that, an inclusion to the already existing damage result of Immobilized of a hull point loss for that specific instance. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:
"counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

I think the no HP loss side need to show an example of any other vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result and did not lose a hull point. Prior to the FAQ, I would point to DTT immobilized and show that it was possible for a vehicle to be immobilized and not lose a HP, but now every immobilized vehicle has lost a HP.

Well that is pretty easy,

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 (which cannot be
repaired in any way).

Do you see a hull point loss in that rule? You might want to read into, "and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has
suffered an Immobilised damage result" as meaning that there is a hull point loss, but no where in that rule are you directed to take a hull point loss.

No, but I also don't see anything that says the drop pod can't move either. However, we know that it can't move because vehicles that have suffered an Immobilised damage result can't move, and the drop pod "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result". Similarly, vehicles that have suffered an immobilised damage result have also lost a hull point, which is why I now believe that drop pods also suffer the loss of a hull point.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Do you have anything that actually links the hull point loss for a failed DTT to the actual immobilized result on the damage table, other then assumption? Your argument is based upon that link, so show it.

The result in the DTT is a, quote, Immobilised Damage Result, unquote. Show another Damage Result in the BRB that is Immobilised that is not on the damage table.
If you do not acknowledge that the result from the DTT errata is in fact the same as the one on the vehicle damage table you must define it another way. Since you claim it's not linked despite the fact that there's literally no other way for the rule to work, you need to show an alternate definition of the rule.

The result of the DTT is

an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table

, including a hull point loss. The Immobilized result on the Vehicle Damage table does NOT have a hull point loss as written. The errata for failing a DTT, includes a hull point loss for that specific situation. It is an inclusion of a a hull point loss to the existing Vehicle Damage table result of Immobilized in the circumstance of a failed DTT. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now,

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 (which cannot be
repaired in any way).

Does the rule above include a hull point loss for the specific situation of a drop pod that has entered play that has suffered an Immobilized damage result? Does the rule look at this specific circumstance and amend the Vehicle Damage table to include the loss of a hull point?

You have absolutely zero permission to apply the results of a specific set of circumstances over a broad spectrum.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tye_Informer wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:
"counts in all respect and purposes as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

I think the no HP loss side need to show an example of any other vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result and did not lose a hull point. Prior to the FAQ, I would point to DTT immobilized and show that it was possible for a vehicle to be immobilized and not lose a HP, but now every immobilized vehicle has lost a HP.

Well that is pretty easy,

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 (which cannot be
repaired in any way).

Do you see a hull point loss in that rule? You might want to read into, "and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has
suffered an Immobilised damage result" as meaning that there is a hull point loss, but no where in that rule are you directed to take a hull point loss.

No, but I also don't see anything that says the drop pod can't move either. However, we know that it can't move because vehicles that have suffered an Immobilised damage result can't move, and the drop pod "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result". Similarly, vehicles that have suffered an immobilised damage result have also lost a hull point, which is why I now believe that drop pods also suffer the loss of a hull point.

No.

We are told that a vehicle can lose a hull point from a penetrating or glancing hit.

We are told that a vehicle can lose a hull point from a failed DTT.

We are NOT told that a vehicle loses a hull point from being Immobilized.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The Immobilized result on the Vehicle Damage table does NOT have a hull point loss as written.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, re-read the Vehicle Damage table, specifically the Immobilised result.

the rules wrote: Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle instead remove an additional Hull Point.

Notice the word additional.

The implication is backed by the only FAQ to address the issue, however.

 kirsanth wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The Immobilized result on the Vehicle Damage table does NOT have a hull point loss as written.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, re-read the Vehicle Damage table, specifically the Immobilised result.

the rules wrote: Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle instead remove an additional Hull Point.

Notice the word additional.

The implication is backed by the only FAQ to address the issue, however.

Or it is referring to the hull point loss from the penetrating hit ir failing a DTT? In those two specific cases you would be losing an "additional" hull point to the one you already lost.

You are correct that it could be, had those situations occurred. In the case we discuss, however, this additional damage is still additional, which requires damage in the first place.

editing to add:
The point is that the rules written for vehicle damage apply to all vehicle damage.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The result of the DTT is

an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table

, including a hull point loss. The Immobilized result on the Vehicle Damage table does NOT have a hull point loss as written. The errata for failing a DTT, includes a hull point loss for that specific situation. It is an inclusion of a a hull point loss to the existing Vehicle Damage table result of Immobilized in the circumstance of a failed DTT. Nothing more, nothing less.

Does the errata limit when the hull point loss is included? No? Hmmmmmm.....
The immobilized damage result includes a hull point loss.
There's no caveat there. It's just included.

Does the rule above include a hull point loss for the specific situation of a drop pod that has entered play that has suffered an Immobilized damage result? Does the rule look at this specific circumstance and amend the Vehicle Damage table to include the loss of a hull point?

So... The Immobilise damage result from a DTT is different from the one on the table, but the one on the table is the same as the one from a drop pod, but there's no rules definition for Immobilise outside of the damage table...

So DTT immobilize just causes a hill point damage and you drive away?]