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.

"is treated as immobilized.."
" is treated as immobilized, including the loss of a hull point"

Are not the same end result though. One clearly has additional information to the other.

Fragile wrote:
"is treated as immobilized.."
" is treated as immobilized, including the loss of a hull point"

Are not the same end result though. One clearly has additional information to the other.

It's not additional, it's included in the result. We know that because they use the word including and not the word additional.

Also, time wizard has accepted that the end result is the same.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
"is treated as immobilized.."
" is treated as immobilized, including the loss of a hull point"

Are not the same end result though. One clearly has additional information to the other.

It's not additional, it's included in the result. We know that because they use the word including and not the word additional.

Also, time wizard has accepted that the end result is the same.

Thats very clearly an assumption, considering that GW is very loose with terminology and this was a FAQ and not necessarily written as a rule. "Including" in that sentence can be used as "also"

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
"is treated as immobilized.."
" is treated as immobilized, including the loss of a hull point"

Are not the same end result though. One clearly has additional information to the other.

It's not additional, it's included in the result. We know that because they use the word including and not the word additional.

Also, time wizard has accepted that the end result is the same.

Thats very clearly an assumption, considering that GW is very loose with terminology and this was a FAQ and not necessarily written as a rule. "Including" in that sentence can be used as "also"

It was actually an errata so clearly written as a rule.

Including can't be used to mean "also". Also means in addition to, include means part of.

in·clude
   [in-klood] Show IPA
verb (used with object), in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing.
1. to contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element: The package includes the computer, program, disks, and a manual.
2. to place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like.
3. to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor.


The loss of the hull point is a subordinate element, separate from the Immobilized.

rigeld2 wrote:
Also, time wizard has accepted that the end result is the same.

I have accepted that the end result, being immobilised, not able to move or pivot, is the same.

There are differences however.

Along with the drop pod not losing a hull point upon landing, it also cannot be repaired by any means.

Some other immobilised vehicles can be repaired.

So the result, immobilised, is the same. But the complete damage, in total, can be very different.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Also, time wizard has accepted that the end result is the same.

I have accepted that the end result, being immobilised, not able to move or pivot, is the same.

There are differences however.

Along with the drop pod not losing a hull point upon landing, it also cannot be repaired by any means.

Some other immobilised vehicles can be repaired.

So the result, immobilised, is the same. But the complete damage, in total, can be very different.

And in the case that it's different note that they use the word "also" as in "in addition".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
in·clude
   [in-klood] Show IPA
verb (used with object), in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing.
1. to contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element: The package includes the computer, program, disks, and a manual.
2. to place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like.
3. to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor.


The loss of the hull point is a subordinate element, separate from the Immobilized.

Completely ignoring the first definition. Well done.
And the 3rd definition still contains the subordinate element. That doesn't mean it's separate - it's part of it (hence the word "contain").

Fragile wrote:
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.

The specific ruling for dangerous terrain was because the rulebook had next to no information (less information than the BT faq has about drop pods) about vehicles being immobilized by dangerous terrain.

With GW adding the errata by including an extra line they did change the rule but they clarified it as well. To put the dangerous terrain test hull point loss ruling in it's own bubble outside of the rest of the rules is ridiculous. To say you must suffer a penetrating/glancing hit to be "damaged" is ridiculous. To say that a vehicle that "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result" is not *damaged* is ridiculous.

The only actual decent argument I've seen from anyone on here is the fact they used the word "has". That can be construed as both past and present tense and in this instance it is difficult to tell which it is because of the context it's being used in. All things being said and done, I wouldn't force this on my opponent. It's a game meant to have fun being played. While it may be fun for me watching them suffer, I'm sure it's not fun for them. I have no doubt it will be ruled otherwise if they ever get around to it, but who really cares about drop pods once they've landed anyway.

I always thought that it was the glancing/penetrating hits that said you lost a hull point not in the actual result itself.

 Leth wrote:
I always thought that it was the glancing/penetrating hits that said you lost a hull point not in the actual result itself.

It is.

It was. It's apparently now taking damage that does it.
Which is not really different. Really.

@rigeld2

No unfortunately I can't provide another possibility of a damage result not connected with a loss of a hullpoint. It was dangerous terrain before the FAQ came out.

But I have an analogy:

General: Someone hits my arm with a club or something similar with enough impact power to (penetrating hit) break my upper arm (-1hp) that means that arm cannot be used anymore. (immobilized)
Failed DTT: I trip over something and fall on my arm (failed test). So I cannot use it anymore. (immobilized) Now the FAQ states, that the arm cannot be used anymore because my upper arm has been broken. (including -1hp)
Drop Pod: I wake up one morning and suddenly can't use my arm. (immobilized)

Now which logical reason do I have to assume, that necessarily my upper arm must have been broken in the night (-1hp)?

I mean it is a possibility but certainly not a necessity.

 Leth wrote:
I always thought that it was the glancing/penetrating hits that said you lost a hull point not in the actual result itself.

Before the FAQ that "was" the only stated way of losing a hull point. Now with the FAQ out and what it says it what has brought up this can of juicy worms. Mostly it's surmising that suffering a vehicle damage result is what brings on the hull point loss. Had GW said dtt was part and parcel to suffering a penetrating hit, then it would be different. As it stands now, we can extrapolate from the decision of the errata that suffering a glance/pen is not the only way.

No, there's no hard and fast wording or ruling stating it applies the same to drop pods, yet, but there is easily a connection and the intent from the errata is clear and there will most likely be a ruling *for* the hull point loss, but saying that means nothing.

Expanding on the similarities of the situations and the relevant information available to us, the conclusion is clear but the consensus is not.

 Kevin949 wrote:
To say that a vehicle that "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result" is not *damaged* is ridiculous.

Its only ridiculous if you forget that your talking about a 5th edition rule. The purpose of which is to describe that the drop pod cannot move after deploying.

Completely ignoring the first definition. Well done.
And the 3rd definition still contains the subordinate element. That doesn't mean it's separate - it's part of it (hence the word "contain").

Im not ignoring 1, your ignoring 3. You were absolute about the meaning of a word that has more than one meaning. How GW meant to use it, who knows. But by clarification, they included a loss of a hull point in a DT test.

 Kevin949 wrote:
the conclusion is clear but the consensus is not.

This is one of the better summations of YMDC threads ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Its only ridiculous if you forget that your talking about a 5th edition rule.

It is a sixth edition rule now. The updates are what the contention is about.
In 5e there were no HP, it was just damaged.
Now damage has a way of being tracked, independent of its effects.

Drop pods have always been damaged upon arrival, according to the rules.

Fragile wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
To say that a vehicle that "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilized damage result" is not *damaged* is ridiculous.

Its only ridiculous if you forget that your talking about a 5th edition rule. The purpose of which is to describe that the drop pod cannot move after deploying.

So the BT Errata is a 5th edition rule? Okay, thanks for that.
edit: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2420305a_Black_Templars_6th_Ed_V1.pdf shows it's a 6th edition errata, fyi.

Completely ignoring the first definition. Well done.
And the 3rd definition still contains the subordinate element. That doesn't mean it's separate - it's part of it (hence the word "contain").

Im not ignoring 1, your ignoring 3. You were absolute about the meaning of a word that has more than one meaning. How GW meant to use it, who knows. But by clarification, they included a loss of a hull point in a DT test.

I ignored 3? I addressed it in the post you quoted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
@rigeld2

No unfortunately I can't provide another possibility of a damage result not connected with a loss of a hullpoint. It was dangerous terrain before the FAQ came out.

But I have an analogy:

General: Someone hits my arm with a club or something similar with enough impact power to (penetrating hit) break my upper arm (-1hp) that means that arm cannot be used anymore. (immobilized)
Failed DTT: I trip over something and fall on my arm (failed test). So I cannot use it anymore. (immobilized) Now the FAQ states, that the arm cannot be used anymore because my upper arm has been broken. (including -1hp)
Drop Pod: I wake up one morning and suddenly can't use my arm. (immobilized)

Now which logical reason do I have to assume, that necessarily my upper arm must have been broken in the night (-1hp)?

I mean it is a possibility but certainly not a necessity.

In the real word there are other possibilities.
No one has shown an alternate 40k rules possibility aside from the assumption of "It's not that way because."

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
@rigeld2

No unfortunately I can't provide another possibility of a damage result not connected with a loss of a hullpoint. It was dangerous terrain before the FAQ came out.

But I have an analogy:

General: Someone hits my arm with a club or something similar with enough impact power to (penetrating hit) break my upper arm (-1hp) that means that arm cannot be used anymore. (immobilized)
Failed DTT: I trip over something and fall on my arm (failed test). So I cannot use it anymore. (immobilized) Now the FAQ states, that the arm cannot be used anymore because my upper arm has been broken. (including -1hp)
Drop Pod: I wake up one morning and suddenly can't use my arm. (immobilized)

Now which logical reason do I have to assume, that necessarily my upper arm must have been broken in the night (-1hp)?

I mean it is a possibility but certainly not a necessity.

Shouldn't the drop pod entry in that analogy be "I plummet to the earth at colossal speeds and my arm is smashed into the ground"?

 -Nazdreg- wrote:

Drop Pod: I wake up one morning and suddenly can't use my arm. (immobilized)

I immediately pictured the Kids in the Hall song when I read that. . .

Was that just me?


editing to add:
No. . . not Kids in the Hall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfKFV1J7O4s

Again how would deepstriking a Gun Emplacement take a -1HP?? If I were to take a Basalisk or a hydra dun emplacement and deep strike it (which you can do) would they ALSO loose 1 -hp? They are immobile once they hit the board. If they do loose 1 HP that makes absolutly no sence as these weapons are dropped into place by a transport and are designed to do such. I still have yet to see anything that says if you are a deepstriking Imobile vehicle you loose 1 hp for becoming your default Immobilized.

It makes perfect sense, that is why they are all 1 HP higher than was otherwise intended.

Dooley wrote:
Again how would deepstriking a Gun Emplacement take a -1HP?? If I were to take a Basalisk or a hydra dun emplacement and deep strike it (which you can do) would they ALSO loose 1 -hp? They are immobile once they hit the board. If they do loose 1 HP that makes absolutly no sence as these weapons are dropped into place by a transport and are designed to do such. I still have yet to see anything that says if you are a deepstriking Imobile vehicle you loose 1 hp for becoming your default Immobilized.

You're attempting to use fluff to justify rules. You shouldn't.

So answere the question. If I deploy a Basalisk emplacemnet it becomes imobilized. Did it just loose a HP via deployment?

Fortifications do not suffer an immobilized damage result.

See also:
Spods

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Imperial_Guard_Emplacements?filter_reset=1

These are not fortifications. They are unit options you can have in your list. They are imobile vehicles the same way a Drop pod becomes imobile once it is deployed. So while I am stting up my Earth Shaker platform does it loose a hullpoint becasue it becomes Immobilized?

rigeld2 wrote:

Dooley wrote:
Again how would deepstriking a Gun Emplacement take a -1HP?? If I were to take a Basalisk or a hydra dun emplacement and deep strike it (which you can do) would they ALSO loose 1 -hp? They are immobile once they hit the board. If they do loose 1 HP that makes absolutly no sence as these weapons are dropped into place by a transport and are designed to do such. I still have yet to see anything that says if you are a deepstriking Imobile vehicle you loose 1 hp for becoming your default Immobilized.

You're attempting to use fluff to justify rules. You shouldn't.

Using other units that work in similar ways isn't fluff.

If you are going to invent new rules for deep striking pods in lieu of common sense why wouldn't you apply your invented rules to all deep striking vehicles?

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Dooley wrote:
Again how would deepstriking a Gun Emplacement take a -1HP?? If I were to take a Basalisk or a hydra dun emplacement and deep strike it (which you can do) would they ALSO loose 1 -hp? They are immobile once they hit the board. If they do loose 1 HP that makes absolutly no sence as these weapons are dropped into place by a transport and are designed to do such. I still have yet to see anything that says if you are a deepstriking Imobile vehicle you loose 1 hp for becoming your default Immobilized.

You're attempting to use fluff to justify rules. You shouldn't.

Using other units that work in similar ways isn't fluff.

If you are going to invent new rules for deep striking pods in lieu of common sense why wouldn't you apply your invented rules to all deep striking vehicles?

I bolded where he was using fluff to justify rules.
I didn't argue with him.

edit: And I don't have access to the deep striking rules for these units. Are they worded the same as the Drop Pod Errata?

I am not inventing fluff I AM crossing rules however because that is my point. Drop Pods (by fluff design) have retro jets that slow them down just before they hit the ground, they are even modeld on the model. Earth Shaker platforms can be deep struck onto the board. The crossing of rules part is in referance to the fact that there are such things as imobile units ie Earthshaker plate forms Tarantulas etc. Drop Pods would be concidered an imobile unit in the same way as these units previously mentioned. An Earth Shaker platfor does not loose a hull point when you deploy it on the bored so why would a Drop Pod?

Dooley wrote:
I am not inventing fluff I AM crossing rules however because that is my point. Drop Pods (by fluff design) have retro jets that slow them down just before they hit the ground, they are even modeld on the model. Earth Shaker platforms can be deep struck onto the board. The crossing of rules part is in referance to the fact that there are such things as imobile units ie Earthshaker plate forms Tarantulas etc. Drop Pods would be concidered an imobile unit in the same way as these units previously mentioned. An Earth Shaker platfor does not loose a hull point when you deploy it on the bored so why would a Drop Pod?

It depends on what the rules say.
I didn't say you're inventing fluff. I said you were using fluff to justify rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
It depends on what the rules say.

Looking at similar ones (I can only assume) from IA books, the answer is "no". They are immobile, not suffering (or having suffered) an immobilized damage result.

Which is why I mentioned Spods earlier.
There are ways to write the rules the way people seem to be reading them.
That is not the way drop pod rules are written, however.

@rigeld2

In the real word there are other possibilities.
No one has shown an alternate 40k rules possibility aside from the assumption of "It's not that way because."

The rules possibility I would suggest, is, that we just apply what is written under "immobilized" on the vehicle damage table. And frankly I can't see a general "-1hp" there (apart from the -1hp in case it is already immobilized).
The failed DTT works exactly the same (we have to apply what is written under "immobilized" on the vehicle damage table) but we have to include a -1hp into that as well.

Why is it so hard to grasp that there can be a difference between those two events? The similarity is the contents of the paragraph on the table. The difference is the inclusion of -1hp in case of a failed dtt.