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.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
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.

It's not that it's hard to grasp... it's down to a disagreement over whether or not that difference is intended.

The issue being debated is down to the choice of wording in the FAQ. Rigeld's point is that the way the FAQ answer for terrain is worded, the Hull Point loss seems to be assumed to be a part of becoming Immobilised. And if it's a part of becoming Immobilised, then it will apply at any time that a vehicle becomes Immobilised.

I don't know if I entirely agree with that assessment, which is why I've stayed out of that part of the discussion... but I can certainly see where that interpretation is coming from.


The big issue as I see it is that while it's certainly possible for the two rules to work differently... that sort of inconsistency is less than ideal when you're dealing with game rules. Identical effect should have identical outcomes. So if terrain rendering you immobile causes a Hull Point loss despite that not actually being a part of the original rule, anything else that renders you immobile in a similar fashion should have the same result... because any other outcome is inconsistent, and inconsistency leads to confusion.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
@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.

Because you cannot take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It will always include a hull point loss.
If you equate the damage result to any other hull point loss you must equate all of it - including everything it includes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - a 13 page thread that's stayed relatively calm. I'm actually amazed. Thanks everyone for providing a useful, calm discussion.

rigeld2 wrote:
Also - a 13 page thread that's stayed relatively calm. I'm actually amazed. Thanks everyone for providing a useful, calm discussion.

Just for this I must now rant and call everyone Cheaters and TFG and insult their intelligence, and break just about every tenet I can.


jk

rigeld2 wrote:
Because you cannot take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It will always include a hull point loss.

Yes...It, the failed DTT will always include a hull point loss.
But a drop pod landing on the does not fail a DTT, heck it doesn't even take one.
Not unless it lands in difficult or dangerous terrain.
If it did that (land in difficult or dangerous terrain) and it failed the DTT, then it would lose a hull point for failing the DTT and another hull point for getting an immobilised damage result while alread immobilised.

rigeld2 wrote:
Also - a 13 page thread that's stayed relatively calm. I'm actually amazed. Thanks everyone for providing a useful, calm discussion.

This ↑ I agree with 100%.

Because you cannot take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It will always include a hull point loss.

This is what I question. I have the opinion, that I can take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It is in fact worded different from the drop pod rule. So there is a factual written difference. Otherwise the FAQ wouldnt need to address the -1hp would it? The drop pod rule doesnt say anything about -1hp. Nor does the contents of the vehicle damage table. So if we transfer the FAQ-wording to the drop pod rule it means adding something that is not there.

 time wizard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because you cannot take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It will always include a hull point loss.

Yes...It, the failed DTT will always include a hull point loss.
But a drop pod landing on the does not fail a DTT, heck it doesn't even take one.

True, but irrelevant.
I'm not saying he suffers HP damage because the DTT rule says so.
The damage result includes Hp damage. You equate the damage result to the one the pod suffers. And yet you're saying that you can ignore part of that damage result.

I'm not understanding where the disconnect is - if something is included, that means you can't separate it without permission. You must take the entire thing.

It seems like the no-hull-point side is trying to only take part of the damage result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Nazdreg- wrote:

Because you cannot take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It will always include a hull point loss.

This is what I question. I have the opinion, that I can take the immobilization during a DTT in isolation. It is in fact worded different from the drop pod rule. So there is a factual written difference. Otherwise the FAQ wouldnt need to address the -1hp would it? The drop pod rule doesnt say anything about -1hp. Nor does the contents of the vehicle damage table. So if we transfer the FAQ-wording to the drop pod rule it means adding something that is not there.

A) It's an errata not a FAQ. Minor but important difference. FAQs can change rules, errata always do.
B) the difference, by definition, is included. It's part of the damage result. If you're saying the Hp isn't applied to the drop pod you're saying that the damage results are different, and I'd like you to define what a drop pod Immobilise actually is. Since apparently we can't look at the damage table to see. Or, if you're okay with equating the drop pod to the damage table but not the DTT, then what does a DTT Immobilise do?

If you're saying they're not all 3 equal, you must define the odd one out. No one has been able to yet.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not saying he suffers HP damage because the DTT rule says so.
The damage result includes Hp damage. You equate the damage result to the one the pod suffers. And yet you're saying that you can ignore part of that damage result.

I'm not understanding where the disconnect is - if something is included, that means you can't separate it without permission. You must take the entire thing.

It seems like the no-hull-point side is trying to only take part of the damage result.

This is where we differ. The Immobilised damage result only mentions losing a hull point if an already immobilised vehicle suffers another immobilised damage result.

None of the other damage results mention the loss of a hull point at all.

The DTT rule was errata'd to include losing a hull point upon failing the test making it an additional piece of damage.

That's because without that inclusion, failing a DTT would not include the loss of a hull point.

Look again at the Penetrating Hit rule. "If a penetrating hit was scored, the vehicle not only loses 1 Hull Point, but also suffers additional damage." {emphasis mine}

All of the types of damage on the Vehicle Damage Table specify the damage a vehicle will suffer in addition to losing a hull point after and because of taking a penetrating hit.

It is not that the vehicle takes the damage and then loses a hull point. Or that the damage and the hull point loss are simultaneous. The Penetrating Hit rule even says that if you lose sufficient Hull Points for the vehicle to be wrecked, you still roll on the vehicle damage table because the vehicle might explode. So clearly, the loss of the hull point comes as a result of the Penetrating Hit, not as a result off the vehicle damage.

So if a vehicle can be damaged without taking a penetrating hit, it does not lose a hull point, not by itself, not without a rule that says differently.

That's why the rule for the failed DTT says that the damage is sustained and includes losing a hull point.

The drop pod immobile rule only mentions that the drop pod counts as a vehicle that has suffered the immobilised damge result, but says nothing about including losing a hull point.

You're still saying that the "include" is on the DTT failure. That's demonstrably false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said this is going nowhere. I'll see where TOs end yup ruling locally and hope for an FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

That said this is going nowhere. I'll see where TOs end yup ruling locally and hope for an FAQ.

On this as well, we agree. But it has been a good debate!

Yep that thing needs to be clarified, definitely. From me as well: Good debate!

The Minus 1 HP on vehicles immobilizing or dangerous terrain is a rule specific for the. Drop pods are Immoble due to the vehicle style. No need to faq this or debate it. SERIOUSLY

Lungpickle wrote:
The Minus 1 HP on vehicles immobilizing or dangerous terrain is a rule specific for the. Drop pods are Immoble due to the vehicle style. No need to faq this or debate it. SERIOUSLY

Yeah, no need at all. Except for the fact that I've brought up rules that say they do take damage.
I'll wait for an FAQ, thanks.

Lungpickle wrote:
The Minus 1 HP on vehicles immobilizing or dangerous terrain is a rule specific for the. Drop pods are Immoble due to the vehicle style. No need to faq this or debate it. SERIOUSLY

Simply amazing. This insight has entirely affirmed? confused? read? my opinion.

Immobilize as per damage is entirely different than immobilize as per damage.

...Why would that make any sense ever

That's obviously not how the rules are meant to be played

Please let dead threads rest in peace.