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.

If you treat the drop pod as if it received an immobilized result, the challenge then is finding a situation where you get an immobilized result without losing a HP. I can't find one. Prior to the failed DT test taking a hull point, I could point to that and say "The only way to lose a HP is a glance or pen hit, failing a DT immobilizes the vehicle without losing a HP, the drop pod works the same". However, now there is not another immobilized result in the game that I can point to that does not also lose a HP. The FAQ for a failed DT even tacks on the loss of the hull point as if it was an "of course, you also lose a hull point". by using language like "including".

That means a drop pod could be wrecked on arrival by landing in Difficult Terrain, which forces a terrain test. Landing, as normal, takes a HP and immobilizes the vehicle. A failed DT test takes a HP and another immobilized result which, according to the chart, becomes another HP loss if you are already immobilized.

If someone could find another situation where a vehicle was immobilized without losing a hull point, then I will switch my opinion back to Drop Pods don't lose a HP, but without that I have to side with the lose a HP crowd.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.

Read and apply:http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3000006&multiPageMode=true&start=2 For your sake and our sanity.

For clarification read the rulebook faq. Scroll down to the part about dangerous terrain Pg. 71 is an easy way to find it in the faq. It adds the losing a hull point to the end of it.

 Happyjew wrote:
Yet in order to be treated as having suffered an immobilised result, it must also be treated add having lost a hull point.

Usually yes, but then you roll on the damage table, you are not rolling on the damage table you are being told what to do.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.

You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/

Luide wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.

You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/

Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)

 Grey Templar wrote:

Luide wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.

You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/

Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)

We have rules backing up our argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?

 Tomb King wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Luide wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.

You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/

Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)

We have rules backing up are argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?

That it doesn't say it does lose a Hull Point.

Permissive rules set you know.

Until GW comes and says that Drop Pods lose a Hull Point when they become Immobilized they will not lose a Hull Point.

Just because there are other situations where a vehicle becomes Immobilized, and has been FAQ'd to lose a HP, doesn't mean it applies here.

And no need to be so hostile.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Luide wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.

You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/

Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)

We have rules backing up are argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?

That it doesn't say it does lose a Hull Point.

Permissive rules set you know.

Until GW comes and says that Drop Pods lose a Hull Point when they become Immobilized they will not lose a Hull Point.

Just because there are other situations where a vehicle becomes Immobilized, and has been FAQ'd to lose a HP, doesn't mean it applies here.

And no need to be so hostile.

Of all my post that is the hostile one? If thats the way you wish to play it just dont expect the same in the tournament scene. For me I will be giving up my hull points willing with the added addition that I get to move up to 6" after I disembark.

So what happens what you pod down, land in DT fail the test which removes two hull points (one for failing and getting immoblised, the second for being immoblised twice) and how you would play it, the third for being immobile?, bye bye to first blood and really the contents as they cannot disembark from something that is destroyed as it comes on the board

Immobile: A drop pod cannot move once it has entered the battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).

 Tomb King wrote:
Immobile: A drop pod cannot move once it has entered the battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).

The Immobilized damage result is seperate from losing the Hull Point. The HP is lost upon suffering a Penetrating hit, and before rolling on the damage chart.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Immobile: A drop pod cannot move once it has entered the battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).

The Immobilized damage result is seperate from losing the Hull Point. The HP is lost upon suffering a Penetrating hit, and before rolling on the damage chart.

I have said my piece and will take my leave before making a mistake.

 Tomb King wrote:
Immobile: A drop pod cannot move once it has entered the battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).

Exactly, so the BRB says glance lose a hull point or Pen you lose a hull point then rolls on the table, a failed DT takes away a HP as per FAQ. Being Immobile is not like rolling on the table as a result of a pen hit, which you lose a hull point, as rolling on the table gives you a random result. You are being told to count it as a vehicle that has suffered a immbilized result not acutally apply the complete process to it (penned then rolling on the table)

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Luide wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.

You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/

Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)

We have rules backing up are argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?

That it doesn't say it does lose a Hull Point.

Permissive rules set you know.

Until GW comes and says that Drop Pods lose a Hull Point when they become Immobilized they will not lose a Hull Point.

Just because there are other situations where a vehicle becomes Immobilized, and has been FAQ'd to lose a HP, doesn't mean it applies here.

And no need to be so hostile.

Have to agree with GT. I am not sure why folks are pointing to the FAQ about dangerous terrain at all in this case. The OP never said anything about danger terrain and as such should have no bearing in this discussion.

The question at hand is if upon landing does a DP suffer a HP loss. The answer is no, since the rules for losing HP are govern by a select set of circumstances:
1. Glancing Hits cause an HP loss
2. Penetrating Hits cause an HP Loss
3. Failed D/D Terain test causes an HP Loss
4. Immobilized Damage result for an ALREADY immobilized vehicle
5. Some psyker powers i believe can cause an HP Loss ( not sure about his one)

In this case neither of these apply to a DP landing.
It did not take any hits of any kind, nor failed a D/D Test, nor suffered a double immobilized result and definitely no Psyker attacks.

So where does it lose the HP from?

40k-noob wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Luide wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why? The two are not connected. The damage result of Immobilized doesn't have lose a Hull Point connected to it, thats connected to the Penetrating hit.

You really have no excuse for claiming this, considering that I posted the relevant FAQ entry earlier. Failing Dangerous Terrain test does not cause Penetrating hit, but does cause loss of Hull Point:

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”.
That FAQ entry specifies that suffering Immobilised result includes losing one Hull Point. This is different from saying "and loses one Hull Point".

I wonder how many times do I have to post this FAQ entry here before people stop with the "Only Glancing and Penetrating Hits cause Hull Point loss" arguments... :/

Thats for DT tests, Drop Pods don't suffer a DT test when they come down. DT has nothing to do with this, I realize now you lose a HP with that(but only because the FAQ says so)

We have rules backing up are argument and even establishing a precedent on how to handle a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized in which case every time one does it loses a hull point! What rules back up your argument?

That it doesn't say it does lose a Hull Point.

Permissive rules set you know.

Until GW comes and says that Drop Pods lose a Hull Point when they become Immobilized they will not lose a Hull Point.

Just because there are other situations where a vehicle becomes Immobilized, and has been FAQ'd to lose a HP, doesn't mean it applies here.

And no need to be so hostile.

Have to agree with GT. I am not sure why folks are pointing to the FAQ about dangerous terrain at all in this case. The OP never said anything about danger terrain and as such should have no bearing in this discussion.

The question at hand is if upon landing does a DP suffer a HP loss. The answer is no, since the rules for losing HP are govern by a select set of circumstances:
1. Glancing Hits cause an HP loss
2. Penetrating Hits cause an HP Loss
3. Failed D/D Terain test causes an HP Loss
4. Immobilized Damage result for an ALREADY immobilized vehicle
5. Some psyker powers i believe can cause an HP Loss ( not sure about his one)

In this case neither of these apply to a DP landing.
It did not take any hits of any kind, nor failed a D/D Test, nor suffered a double immobilized result and definitely no Psyker attacks.

So where does it lose the HP from?

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?

Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?

Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.

 Tomb King wrote:

Sorry guys some rules in 6th edition suck. You can choose to remain blind to them or adapt like everyone else is. It loses a hull point as anytime a vehicle becomes immobilized it loses a hull point.

If someone disagrees with you and points out why, it's poor form to call them blind.

40k-noob wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?

Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.

For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"

kronk wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

Sorry guys some rules in 6th edition suck. You can choose to remain blind to them or adapt like everyone else is. It loses a hull point as anytime a vehicle becomes immobilized it loses a hull point.

If someone disagrees with you and points out why, it's poor form to call them blind.

My apologies I could of worded that a lot better. Was meant to be an observation of two routes to the changes and not directed.

Question, as I don't have my Tau codex, but can't Tau Skimmers with Landing Gear choose to land, and be treated as Immobilized?

If so, does that mean they automatically take a HP for doing so?

The Drop-Pod is a totally seperate unit/entity/whatever to all the above examples you have given for the loss of a HP. All of the rules references are correct and all apply in their own set of given circumstances but until an FAQ shows specifically stating that the Drop-Pod loses a HP upon a normal landing then it does not.

All these arguments over DT, Penetrating and Glancing hits etc are unfounded as nowhere do these rules apply to the Drop-Pod.

An if said FAQ ever arrived shall we have a guess at which way they will go?

 wildboar wrote:
The Drop-Pod is a totally seperate unit/entity/whatever to all the above examples you have given for the loss of a HP. All of the rules references are correct and all apply in their own set of given circumstances but until an FAQ shows specifically stating that the Drop-Pod loses a HP upon a normal landing then it does not.

All these arguments over DT, Penetrating and Glancing hits etc are unfounded as nowhere do these rules apply to the Drop-Pod.

An if said FAQ ever arrived shall we have a guess at which way they will go?

Actually RAW is that it loses a hull point. My post above quoted the rule. It is treated a vehicle that has suffered all that. Not that it is immobilized. Not that it suffers an immobilized result but, that it is treated as one that has in all respects. In every situation where a vehicle has suffered an immobilized result it has also suffered a loss of a hull point. So for it to be treated in ALL respects the same as a vehicle that had suffered that result it too would have to lose a hull point.

 Tomb King wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?

Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.

For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"

Yes, I can agree with that.
However, the rule is specific and says it counts as the damage result and nothing else. The HP loss if from the hit not from the damage result.
The damage result is just this:

BRB Vehicle Damage Chart: 5 - Immobilized wrote:
An Immobilized vehicle cannot move - it may not even pivot, but its turret may continue to rotate to select targets, and other weapons retain their normal arcs of fire.
Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or a Flyer with locked Velocity (see page 8l) instead remove an additional Hull Point.

40k-noob wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

Alright so I am back because this one is easy to counter.

See my post above about immobile. Particularly the part: counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result! ....Pause for emphasis...... Every vehicle that has an immobolized damage result has also taken -1 hull point. So to fully treat a drop pod like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result it too would have to take all the same results?

Not even close.

The rule is specific. "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result" which means you directly to the damage chart and nothing else. You do not check for Armor Penetration against the vehicle nor resolve Damage so no Hull Point loss.

For something to count in all respects as something else would that not mean that it would have to mimic that thing completely? Key phrase being, "In all respects!"

Yes, I can agree with that.
However, the rule is specific and says it counts as the damage result and nothing else. The HP loss if from the hit not from the damage result.
The damage result is just this:

BRB Vehicle Damage Chart: 5 - Immobilized wrote:
An Immobilized vehicle cannot move - it may not even pivot, but its turret may continue to rotate to select targets, and other weapons retain their normal arcs of fire.
Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or a Flyer with locked Velocity (see page 8l) instead remove an additional Hull Point.

The rule says its counts as the damage result and nothing else? I didnt see that in any of the rules i read. It says its treated as a vehicle that has suffered those effects. Not that its treated as being immobilized. See previous post to get to a point where a vehicle is immobilized. Every situation a vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point. So for it to meet the standard it must take all the effects of said vehicle.

Except the loss of the HP is not tied to the damage result. Its tied to taking a Penetrating hit.


A Penetrating hit has 2 effects.

1) Lose a Hull Point.

2) Roll on the damage chart.

1 is not related to 2 except they have the same cause.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except the loss of the HP is not tied to the damage result. Its tied to taking a Penetrating hit.


A Penetrating hit has 2 effects.

1) Lose a Hull Point.

2) Roll on the damage chart.

1 is not related to 2 except they have the same cause.

No it is not tied to the damage result. That is not why its raw. Its raw because it is treated in ALL respects as a vehicle that has suffered that damage result. In every situation that vehicle is -1 hull point. So for it to be treated in all respects as that vehicle it too would need to be -1 hull point.

So gauss plyons and hydra platforms also lose HP's as they are classed immobile vehicles in your opinion, 50 pts for av10 and 1 hp....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except the loss of the HP is not tied to the damage result. Its tied to taking a Penetrating hit.


A Penetrating hit has 2 effects.

1) Lose a Hull Point.

2) Roll on the damage chart.

1 is not related to 2 except they have the same cause.

No it is not tied to the damage result. That is not why its raw. Its raw because it is treated in ALL respects as a vehicle that has suffered that damage result. In every situation that vehicle is -1 hull point. So for it to be treated in all respects as that vehicle it too would need to be -1 hull point.

But whats to say that immobile vehicles is NOT that situation?

Good thing buildings don't have Hull Points, otherwise they'd be useless

FenixZero wrote:
Question, as I don't have my Tau codex, but can't Tau Skimmers with Landing Gear choose to land, and be treated as Immobilized?

No, they just don't count as skimmers while landed.

MarkyMark wrote:
So gauss plyons and hydra platforms also lose HP's as they are classed immobile vehicles in your opinion, 50 pts for av10 and 1 hp....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except the loss of the HP is not tied to the damage result. Its tied to taking a Penetrating hit.


A Penetrating hit has 2 effects.

1) Lose a Hull Point.

2) Roll on the damage chart.

1 is not related to 2 except they have the same cause.

No it is not tied to the damage result. That is not why its raw. Its raw because it is treated in ALL respects as a vehicle that has suffered that damage result. In every situation that vehicle is -1 hull point. So for it to be treated in all respects as that vehicle it too would need to be -1 hull point.

But whats to say that immobile vehicles is NOT that situation?

Immobile is the special rule for drop pods and those above never suffered an immobilized result.

MarkyMark wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Immobile: A drop pod cannot move once it has entered the battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way).

Exactly, so the BRB says glance lose a hull point or Pen you lose a hull point then rolls on the table, a failed DT takes away a HP as per FAQ. Being Immobile is not like rolling on the table as a result of a pen hit, which you lose a hull point, as rolling on the table gives you a random result. You are being told to count it as a vehicle that has suffered a immbilized result not acutally apply the complete process to it (penned then rolling on the table)

I'll ask this again, you are being told to treat it as a immobilzed damage result, so you do, no where does it say to treat it as a penetrated hit on the damage table, automatically choosing 5 on the damage chart. The result is what you get from rolling on the table is it not? you are assuming this includes the reason why you are rolling on the table which is usually a penertrating hit which is what removes a HP from it.

There is no pentrating hit, so no loss of HP