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.

There is nothing in the drop pod assault rule that notes the loss of a hull point.

You can't infer a hull point loss from an errata to a completely different rule.

If there is no rule stating loss of a hull point then it can not lose a hull point.

Kevlar wrote:
There is nothing in the drop pod assault rule that notes the loss of a hull point.

You can't infer a hull point loss from an errata to a completely different rule.

If there is no rule stating loss of a hull point then it can not lose a hull point.

So the DTT damage result is different from the drop pod one?

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Of course not!

The Rule for vehicles failing DTT had to be re-written and errata'd because there was confusion in the original rule. It said, "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test is instantly Immobilised (see page 74)."

When you look at page 74 you see the Immobilised result on the damage table. That result alone does not say that an Immobilised vehicle automatically loses a Hull Point, just that vehicles that were already immobilised would lose an additional one. So the original rule was too vague about whether a vehicle failing a DTT would lose a hull point. And a vehicle failing a DTT could never lose an additional hull point from a second immobilised result, because if it was immobilised it could not move into difficult or dangerous terrain.

If the errata simply said, “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table." there would still be nothing in the rules that specified that the vehicle would lose a Hull Point.

So the errata reads, “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point." so that there is no doubt that the vehicle cannot be moved any further, cannot pivot, and also loses a Hull Point.

I can see your point that to get to an immobilised damage result, you would have lost a hull point, but that's only after taking a penetrating hit. If you take a glancing hit, there is no roll on the damage table.

I believe the wording of the DTT errata is meant to tell us that on a failed DTT, your vehicle is not only immobilised as spelled out on the vehicle damage table, the result of failing that test includes losing a hull point, even though you were not immobilised due to a penetrating hit, or from getting hit at all.

But a drop pod that touches down on the battlefield counts as a vehicle that suffered an immobilised damage result, which from the failed DTT we see can be or could have been achieved without taking a penetrating hit and the loss of a hull point, and the drop pod rule does not have the "...including losing one Hull Point." addendum that the failed DTT has.

That's why I believe that the drop pod, the moment it touches down, is immobilised exactly as spelled out on the vehicle damage table, but it does not lose a hull point as well. At least not until the SM FAQ is revised to say so.

So you agree that the hull point is part and parcel with the damage result?

If all the damage results are referencing the same thing, I don't get you can say that one of the immobilisations does suffer a hull point but the others totally do.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you agree that the hull point is part and parcel with the damage result?

If the loss of the hull point was part and parcel of all vehicle damage results, and a damage result like, say, immobilised was repaired, then wouldn't the hull point be "repaired" or restored as well?

The loss of the hull point occurs before the vehicle damage when a penetrating hit has been suffered, simultaneous with the vehicle damage when the vehicle fails the DTT, but does not occur when a drop pod lands in clear terrain.

The vehicle damage table rules are written the way they are because more often than not, a roll will be made on that table after a vehicle has already suffered a penetrating hit.

Failing a dangerous terrain test is an exception to the rules that has now been clarified. But as of now, it is only clarified specifically for failing that test.

Just curious, before the FAQ was there any reason for a vehicle to loose a Hull Point from failing a terrain test?

FAQ's change rules a lot, and those changes don't always follow the rules themselves.

 grendel083 wrote:
Just curious, before the FAQ was there any reason for a vehicle to loose a Hull Point from failing a terrain test?

FAQ's change rules a lot, and those changes don't always follow the rules themselves.

There was nothing obvious or overt. As I quoted, the original rule said, "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test is instantly Immobilised (see page 74)."

Nothing about suffering damage or taking damage as per the vehicle damage chart, nothing about being damaged at all for that matter.

With the exception of being immobilised that is!

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you agree that the hull point is part and parcel with the damage result?

If the loss of the hull point was part and parcel of all vehicle damage results, and a damage result like, say, immobilised was repaired, then wouldn't the hull point be "repaired" or restored as well?

No, because repairing can specifically only do one of them.

The loss of the hull point occurs before the vehicle damage when a penetrating hit has been suffered, simultaneous with the vehicle damage when the vehicle fails the DTT, but does not occur when a drop pod lands in clear terrain.

So the damage result is different between the three of them.
Which ones use the rules in the table? For the ones that don't, where would I find rules for them?

rigeld2 wrote:
So the damage result is different between the three of them.

As they stand now, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which ones use the rules in the table? For the ones that don't, where would I find rules for them?

How can I give a rule for a vehicle that doesn't use a particular rule? How can I prove a negative?

The positive rules proofs are:

Suffer a penetrating hit, lose a hull point and suffer vehicle damage like immobilised.

Fait a DTT, become immobilised and lose a hull point.

Land a drop pod, become immobilised. Nothing else is specified.

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.

Seriously, you believe that even though it is errata for Vehicles and Dangerous Terrain, it has nothing to do with Vehicles and Dangerous Terrain specifically? If you believe that, then there's nothing I can say to help you understand.

 grendel083 wrote:
Just curious, before the FAQ was there any reason for a vehicle to loose a Hull Point from failing a terrain test?

FAQ's change rules a lot, and those changes don't always follow the rules themselves.

Look at the rule in the book about it, you'll understand then.

All it says is - a vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test is immediately immobilized (Pg 74.).

That's pretty much all it says.

 time wizard wrote:
The positive rules proofs are:

Suffer a penetrating hit, lose a hull point and suffer vehicle damage like immobilised.

Fait a DTT, become immobilised and lose a hull point.

Land a drop pod, become immobilised. Nothing else is specified.

This. The rules for penetrating hits are 1. suffer a penetrating hit and lose a hull point and 2. suffer a damage result (such as immobilized). The rules for deploying a drop pod are 1. Deploy the drop pod and 2. suffer an immobilized result. Unless and until GW FAQ/errata this there is no rule which requires the removal of a hull point form a drop pod on deployment.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the damage result is different between the three of them.

As they stand now, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which ones use the rules in the table? For the ones that don't, where would I find rules for them?

How can I give a rule for a vehicle that doesn't use a particular rule? How can I prove a negative?

The positive rules proofs are:

Suffer a penetrating hit, lose a hull point and suffer vehicle damage like immobilised.

Fait a DTT, become immobilised and lose a hull point.

Land a drop pod, become immobilised. Nothing else is specified.

You're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

You've asserted that the damage result between the three is different. That means we can't use the damage table rules to resolve what happens when a DTT immobilizes a vehicle. Nor can we use it to determine what an immobile drop pod means. So could you find me the rules to define immobilized in those two examples?

rigeld2 wrote:

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the damage result is different between the three of them.

As they stand now, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which ones use the rules in the table? For the ones that don't, where would I find rules for them?

How can I give a rule for a vehicle that doesn't use a particular rule? How can I prove a negative?

The positive rules proofs are:

Suffer a penetrating hit, lose a hull point and suffer vehicle damage like immobilised.

Fait a DTT, become immobilised and lose a hull point.

Land a drop pod, become immobilised. Nothing else is specified.

You're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

You've asserted that the damage result between the three is different. That means we can't use the damage table rules to resolve what happens when a DTT immobilizes a vehicle. Nor can we use it to determine what an immobile drop pod means. So could you find me the rules to define immobilized in those two examples?

I pointed It out and now he has pointed it out, you are asking for us to prove a negative as your magic trump card to your argument.

I have not once asserted that the damage results between the three are different. Even he hasn't either. We have asserted that the circumstances for each circumstance are unique to how a hull point is lost or not lost.

1. A Penetrating Hit causes the loss of a hull point and a roll on the Vehicle Damage table, which can result in an Immobilized result (per the table).
2. A failed DTT will Immobilize (per the table) and includes a hull point loss.

The FAQ for drop pods does not include a hull point loss. It tells you that you are immobilized which refers you to the table. At no time does it include a hull point loss.

So stop asking for us to prove the negative as none of us are saying there is a seperate vehicle damage table.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the damage result is different between the three of them.

As they stand now, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which ones use the rules in the table? For the ones that don't, where would I find rules for them?

How can I give a rule for a vehicle that doesn't use a particular rule? How can I prove a negative?

The positive rules proofs are:

Suffer a penetrating hit, lose a hull point and suffer vehicle damage like immobilised.

Fait a DTT, become immobilised and lose a hull point.

Land a drop pod, become immobilised. Nothing else is specified.

You're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

You've asserted that the damage result between the three is different. That means we can't use the damage table rules to resolve what happens when a DTT immobilizes a vehicle. Nor can we use it to determine what an immobile drop pod means. So could you find me the rules to define immobilized in those two examples?

I pointed It out and now he has pointed it out, you are asking for us to prove a negative as your magic trump card to your argument.

I have not once asserted that the damage results between the three are different. Even he hasn't either. We have asserted that the circumstances for each circumstance are unique to how a hull point is lost or not lost.

Actually, he did. I've even left it in the quote.

1. A Penetrating Hit causes the loss of a hull point and a roll on the Vehicle Damage table, which can result in an Immobilized result (per the table).
2. A failed DTT will Immobilize (per the table) and includes a hull point loss.

The FAQ for drop pods does not include a hull point loss. It tells you that you are immobilized which refers you to the table. At no time does it include a hull point loss.

Can suffering a wound from dangerous terrain remove a model? What are the pen rules during a death or glory?
Your assertion is that every rule contains everything you need to know. That's proven false.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your assertion is that every rule contains everything you need to know. That's proven false.

Why? Because you say so? You're adding complexity to something that doesn't need it. The description for the Immobilized result is in the BRB. The(errata'd) description for failing a DTT is in the 1.1 FAQ, and then includes a second condition(removing a hull point) for failing a DTT. That's really everything we need to follow the rules. There's plenty of areas in the rules that are ambiguous, but this isn't one of them.

rigeld2 wrote:
Can suffering a wound from dangerous terrain remove a model?

It can if the model has only one wound remaining and fails a save that it might have.
But the dangerous terrain rule on page 90 does not mention vehicles at all, that's why there has to be a different rule covering failed dangerous terrain tests for vehicles.
The 2 rules are similar, but different in their application. Happens from time to time in the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
What are the pen rules during a death or glory?

They are the same as the rules for any other attack.
But a drop pod landing has not been attacked or suffered a hit.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your assertion is that every rule contains everything you need to know. That's proven false.

Some rules build on other rules.
Some rules do indeed contain all the specifics for that particular rule and how that rule interracts with a model type.
For example, the "Gets Hot" obviously must build on the rules for target acquisition, range, LOS, etc. but the rule also contains all the details you need to know to resolve rolling a certain result on a die that is particular to that rule.

The drop pod rule says that it arrives via deep strike so it builds on the deep strike rule, but contains specifices about what happens after it lands.
After the pod lands, every passenger must disembark. this is different from other transports, but is specific to the drop pod.
The moment it touches down it is immobile, and counts as a vehicle that suffered an immobilised damage result, but not including losing a hull point.

That particular inclusion is specified in failing a DTT, but lacking in the drop pod rule.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Can suffering a wound from dangerous terrain remove a model?

It can if the model has only one wound remaining and fails a save that it might have.
But the dangerous terrain rule on page 90 does not mention vehicles at all, that's why there has to be a different rule covering failed dangerous terrain tests for vehicles.
The 2 rules are similar, but different in their application. Happens from time to time in the rules.

You missed my point. You're saying that anything the rule does will be included in the rule.
Dangerous Terrain wounds don't ever say that models will be removed.
Therefore, according to you, they don't get removed.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your assertion is that every rule contains everything you need to know. That's proven false.

Some rules build on other rules.
Some rules do indeed contain all the specifics for that particular rule and how that rule interracts with a model type.
For example, the "Gets Hot" obviously must build on the rules for target acquisition, range, LOS, etc. but the rule also contains all the details you need to know to resolve rolling a certain result on a die that is particular to that rule.

So now I'm confused. The "Immobilised Damage Result" in the 3 rules is different - which you agreed to (I can re-quote it if you need to be reminded) - but you can't cite a source for how to treat the immobilised for the two non-damage result table ones, and you're now saying that some rules build on other ones... meaning that something in rule B can effect how rule A works. Which is what I'm saying.

The drop pod rule says that it arrives via deep strike so it builds on the deep strike rule, but contains specifices about what happens after it lands.
After the pod lands, every passenger must disembark. this is different from other transports, but is specific to the drop pod.
The moment it touches down it is immobile, and counts as a vehicle that suffered an immobilised damage result, but not including losing a hull point.

That particular inclusion is specified in failing a DTT, but lacking in the drop pod rule.

Removing a model as a casualty is specified in taking a wound in the shooting phase, but lacking in the Dangerous Terrain test rule. Obviously casualties are not removed due to DTT failures. Thanks for pointing that out.

rigeld2 wrote:
You missed my point. You're saying that anything the rule does will be included in the rule.
Dangerous Terrain wounds don't ever say that models will be removed.
Therefore, according to you, they don't get removed.

You missed my point.
Anything the rules does will be included in the rule, true.
But not necessarily everything the rule does will be included.

rigeld2 wrote:
So now I'm confused. The "Immobilised Damage Result" in the 3 rules is different - which you agreed to (I can re-quote it if you need to be reminded) - but you can't cite a source for how to treat the immobilised for the two non-damage result table ones, and you're now saying that some rules build on other ones... meaning that something in rule B can effect how rule A works. Which is what I'm saying.

I apologize for the confusion. You said, "So the damage result is different between the three of them." and I said "As they stand now. yes."
I was referring to the damage result, not the "Immobilised Damage Result" on the "Vehicle Damage Table".
The "Immobilised Damage Result", the rule specified on the table, the "cannot move...may not even pivot...further immobilised results remove hull points" remains the same. But the "vehicle damage" actually suffered can be different.
Take a penetrating hit - lose a hull point.
Immobilised on the Vehicle Damage Table and already immobilised - lose an additional hull point
Fail a DTT - immobilised and lose a hull point.
Land a drop pod - immobilised only.

See, different vehicle damage results even though each vehicle suffered "Immobilised Vehicle Damage".

rigeld2 wrote:
Removing a model as a casualty is specified in taking a wound in the shooting phase, but lacking in the Dangerous Terrain test rule. Obviously casualties are not removed due to DTT failures. Thanks for pointing that out.

Then obviously vehicles are never removed from losing a hull point to a falied DTT, because removing a vehicle due to it being reduced to 0 wounds is in the Wrecked Vehicle rule but lacking in the Dangerous Terrain rule.
I said that some rules, in fact most rules, bulid upon other rules.
If a model is reduced to 0 wounds, no matter how, it is removed as a casualty.
If a vehicle is reduced to 0 hull points, no matter how, it is wrecked.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Removing a model as a casualty is specified in taking a wound in the shooting phase, but lacking in the Dangerous Terrain test rule. Obviously casualties are not removed due to DTT failures. Thanks for pointing that out.

Then obviously vehicles are never removed from losing a hull point to a falied DTT, because removing a vehicle due to it being reduced to 0 wounds is in the Wrecked Vehicle rule but lacking in the Dangerous Terrain rule.
I said that some rules, in fact most rules, bulid upon other rules.
If a model is reduced to 0 wounds, no matter how, it is removed as a casualty.
If a vehicle is reduced to 0 hull points, no matter how, it is wrecked.

And you're asserting that one rule having something included does not mean that other references to literally the exact same thing don't have it included?

I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either rules are exclusive in that everything to resolve a rule is included in the rule (which cannot be how the 40k rules are written) or rules are inclusive meaning that you have to take the entire rules set as a collective and evaluate using everything.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're asserting that one rule having something included does not mean that other references to literally the exact same thing don't have it included?

I'm asserting that even though the final result (vehicle is immobilised) is the same, the rule for the drop pod lacks the "...including losing one Hull Point."
So you are not permitted to remove the hull point from a drop pod that lands in clear terrain (permissive ruleset).

That being said, I doubt we will ever change one another's mind on this.
But it has been a good argument and I thank you for keeping it civil.

This is starting to remind me of the RFP v RFPaaC brought about due to St. C's FAQ.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're asserting that one rule having something included does not mean that other references to literally the exact same thing don't have it included?

I'm asserting that even though the final result (vehicle is immobilised) is the same, the rule for the drop pod lacks the "...including losing one Hull Point."

If the final result is the same (which you agree with) and the final result in one case includes a hull point loss, what's the justification for treating the final results differently?

rigeld2 wrote:

If the final result is the same (which you agree with) and the final result in one case includes a hull point loss, what's the justification for treating the final results differently?

Just because the final result in one case includes the loss of a hull point, does not automatically mean it includes the loss of a hull point in every case.
Just the ones that specifically say so.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

If the final result is the same (which you agree with) and the final result in one case includes a hull point loss, what's the justification for treating the final results differently?

Just because the final result in one case includes the loss of a hull point, does not automatically mean it includes the loss of a hull point in every case.
Just the ones that specifically say so.

But you've said that the end result is the same across all 3 and the end result includes something...
If it specified additional you'd be right... but I can't see how something is included in one case and not in the exact same case somewhere else, taking the rules as a whole.

rigeld2 wrote:

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

If the final result is the same (which you agree with) and the final result in one case includes a hull point loss, what's the justification for treating the final results differently?

Just because the final result in one case includes the loss of a hull point, does not automatically mean it includes the loss of a hull point in every case.
Just the ones that specifically say so.

But you've said that the end result is the same across all 3 and the end result includes something...
If it specified additional you'd be right... but I can't see how something is included in one case and not in the exact same case somewhere else, taking the rules as a whole.

I dont understand how Tyranid IC cannot join their units in a Spore(transport), when Space marines et.al. can join their units in Drop Pods(tranports). The exact same rule with two entirely different rulings.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

If the final result is the same (which you agree with) and the final result in one case includes a hull point loss, what's the justification for treating the final results differently?

Just because the final result in one case includes the loss of a hull point, does not automatically mean it includes the loss of a hull point in every case.
Just the ones that specifically say so.

But you've said that the end result is the same across all 3 and the end result includes something...
If it specified additional you'd be right... but I can't see how something is included in one case and not in the exact same case somewhere else, taking the rules as a whole.

I dont understand how Tyranid IC cannot join their units in a Spore(transport), when Space marines et.al. can join their units in Drop Pods(tranports). The exact same rule with two entirely different rulings.

Right. But there isn't a ruling saying that the end results are different - people are assuming they are.
There is a ruling saying that Tyranid IC's cannot join units in a spore.

And there is no ruling saying they are the same either. There is only a specific ruling for DT. We are assuming that it applies elsewhere.

Saying that DTT applies to Drop Pods, is similar to saying that St. Celestine's Faq applies to Necrons.

Happyjew wrote:
Saying that DTT applies to Drop Pods, is similar to saying that St. Celestine's Faq applies to Necrons.

Not really.

The St. C FAQ was asking a question specifically about St. C and the answer wasn't inclusive - it does not address all return-from-dead abilities - just St. C's. Therefore to make the connection you have to extend the ruling.
The DTT errata has the end result including a hull point. Since there's no difference in end results you don't have to extend anything - they're already the same.