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.

MarkyMark wrote:

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

No your being told to treat it as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result in every aspect.

See how you can see it differently.

The text in question doesn't state that it suffers and immobilized damage result alone it says it is treated as a vehicle that has and in every situation where a vehicle has it has also suffered a hull point.

But it doesnt tell you to subtract a hull point, it tells you to treat is as a suffered a immobziled result which is the result on the table. It even says you cannot repair it in any way, which normally you can restore a hull point to a damage vehicle. Another hint that this is not normal.

You are assuming that you follow the 'normal' process of having a pentrating hit on the damage table, it doesnt tell you to do that, it says to treat it as having suffered a immobilzed result on the table.

MarkyMark wrote:
But it doesnt tell you to subtract a hull point, it tells you to treat is as a suffered a immobziled result which is the result on the table. It even says you cannot repair it in any way, which normally you can restore a hull point to a damage vehicle. Another hint that this is not normal.

You are assuming that you follow the 'normal' process of having a pentrating hit on the damage table, it doesnt tell you to do that, it says to treat it as having suffered a immobilzed result on the table.

This is like a gauntlet. It would be best if you read the thread in its entirety so I dont have to keep repeating it over and over. There is more then one way a vehicle can become immobolized. However, in every situation that a vehicle becomes immobilized it also loses a hull point. This is including failed DT test.

Now to treat a vehicle in ALL RESPECTS as a vehicle that has suffered that result.

Since any vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point regardless of the means of suffering the result. (find one situation where a vehicle has suffered an immobilization and not a hull point as well.)

For a drop pod to be the same in all respects as a vehicle that suffered that result it too would need to suffer 1 hull point. Otherwise it would not be treated in all respects as another vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result.

 Tomb King wrote:

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.

Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.

Luide wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
Yeah if you look at the Drop Pod entry, it has the Special Rule Immobile, it doesn't suffer an immobilized hit. It may count as a model that has suffered the result for all intents and purposes, but it hasn't actually suffered one. So no, it doesn't lose a hull point/

SM FAQ:
Q: Do Drop Pods count as immobilised the moment they touch down? Also, are any immobilised hits on them counted for weapon destroyed etc? (p69)
A. Yes

So they counts as having suffered Immobilised result, which according to BRB FAQ includes loss of Hull point. Note that your interpretation that "counts as having suffered" is somehow different than actually having suffered is wrong, and if you apply it consistently will break the whole game.

Your FAQ citation still does not say the Drop Pod suffers the loss of a Hull Point. It just says if one gets shot, penetrated, and has another Immobilised result then it does to Weapon Destroyed instead.

 Tomb King wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
But it doesnt tell you to subtract a hull point, it tells you to treat is as a suffered a immobziled result which is the result on the table. It even says you cannot repair it in any way, which normally you can restore a hull point to a damage vehicle. Another hint that this is not normal.

You are assuming that you follow the 'normal' process of having a pentrating hit on the damage table, it doesnt tell you to do that, it says to treat it as having suffered a immobilzed result on the table.

This is like a gauntlet. It would be best if you read the thread in its entirety so I dont have to keep repeating it over and over. There is more then one way a vehicle can become immobolized. However, in every situation that a vehicle becomes immobilized it also loses a hull point. This is including failed DT test.

Now to treat a vehicle in ALL RESPECTS as a vehicle that has suffered that result.

Since any vehicle that has suffered that result is also -1 hull point regardless of the means of suffering the result. (find one situation where a vehicle has suffered an immobilization and not a hull point as well.)

For a drop pod to be the same in all respects as a vehicle that suffered that result it too would need to suffer 1 hull point. Otherwise it would not be treated in all respects as another vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result.

And again, just because it happens there doesn't mean you can apply it here.

Vehicles did NOT lose HPs to DT tests prior to the Errata.

You cannot infer that just because one completely different thing that Immobilizes a vehicle causes a HP to be lost that another thing that Immobilizes the vehicle will cause it to lose a HP. Permissive Ruleset. It MUST say that the HP is lost for you to lose it. Anything else is just plain wrong.

40k-noob wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

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.

Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.

I didnt say it took a hit anywhere.. that does not matter.

To be treated the same in all aspects.

An example:

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point (as any immobolized result only comes with a result of -1 hull point, its not possible to suffer an immobolized result without losing a hull point)

Vehicle B is immobolized with full hull points

Answer: No they are not the same in all area's.

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point

Vehicle B is immobolized and -1 hull point

Yes, these vehicles are now both the same.

 Tomb King wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

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.

Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.

I didnt say it took a hit anywhere.. that does not matter.

To be treated the same in all aspects.

An example:

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point (as any immobolized result only comes with a result of -1 hull point, its not possible to suffer an immobolized result without losing a hull point)

Vehicle B is immobolized with full hull points

Answer: No they are not the same in all area's.

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point

Vehicle B is immobolized and -1 hull point

Yes, these vehicles are now both the same.

You are confusing the issue.

Your counts as is looking at other things besides damage result. You are at looking at hull points.

The correct analogy is this:
Vic A - 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

Vic B - 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

Are the two the same? Yes they are.

40k-noob wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

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.

Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.

I didnt say it took a hit anywhere.. that does not matter.

To be treated the same in all aspects.

An example:

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point (as any immobolized result only comes with a result of -1 hull point, its not possible to suffer an immobolized result without losing a hull point)

Vehicle B is immobolized with full hull points

Answer: No they are not the same in all area's.

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point

Vehicle B is immobolized and -1 hull point

Yes, these vehicles are now both the same.

You are confusing the issue.

Your counts as is looking at other things besides damage result. You are at looking at hull points.

The correct analogy is this:
Vic A - 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

Vic B - 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

Are the two the same? Yes they are.

For starters here is the drop pod rule:

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).

Now the only question that matters is how does a vehicle suffer an immobilized damage result? Once we figure that out we have to match the vehicles condition in all respects. Can you find a situation where a vehicle does not suffer a hull point in the process of suffering a immobilized damage result?

They suffer that result by rolling on the table. It doesnt say to roll on the table so isnt a 'normal' process which is the rest of the time preceeded by suffereing a penerating hit

MarkyMark wrote:
They suffer that result by rolling on the table. It doesnt say to roll on the table so isnt a 'normal' process which is the rest of the time preceeded by suffereing a penerating hit

I am just pointing out what you need to meet the RAW and possibly the RAI. YMPID and that is fine but for big tournaments and such you should expect the latter of it losing a hull point.

So, what some of the people in this thread are saying is that immobilized removes a hull point.

Penetrating hits remove a hull point.

According to this logic:
Step 1 - I hit your tank, and roll a pen, you lose a hull point
Step 2 - I roll an immobilized result, you become immobilized and lose a hull point

Wow, immobilized results really suck according to this faulty logic, because they can wreck light vehicles pretty easily.

(I am ready for your flaming, but, this is exactly what you are saying if immobilized causes a hull point loss)

 nolzur wrote:
So, what some of the people in this thread are saying is that immobilized removes a hull point.

Penetrating hits remove a hull point.

According to this logic:
Step 1 - I hit your tank, and roll a pen, you lose a hull point
Step 2 - I roll an immobilized result, you become immobilized and lose a hull point

Wow, immobilized results really suck according to this faulty logic, because they can wreck light vehicles pretty easily.

(I am ready for your flaming, but, this is exactly what you are saying if immobilized causes a hull point loss)

No flame needed. Just illumination.

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).

So for a drop pod to counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result. It would need to be in the exact same condition of one that has suffered such a result right? Every situation in the game of warhammer 40k that brings a vehicle to being immobilized is also accompanied with the vehicle losing a hull point.

Vehicle is penned (losing hull point) and a 5 of the damage table is rolled making it immobilized. (This vehicle has suffered an immobilized result)
Vehicle moves through difficult/dangerous terrain and rolls a 1. The vehicle per the faq becomes immobolized and loses a hull point. (This vehicle has suffered and immobilized result)

Is there any way I missed that a vehicle can suffer an immobilized result and not lose a hull point? Then by definition to meet that standard in all respects you would have to lose a hull point when immobilized.

 Tomb King wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

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.

Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.

I didnt say it took a hit anywhere.. that does not matter.

To be treated the same in all aspects.

An example:

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point (as any immobolized result only comes with a result of -1 hull point, its not possible to suffer an immobolized result without losing a hull point)

Vehicle B is immobolized with full hull points

Answer: No they are not the same in all area's.

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point

Vehicle B is immobolized and -1 hull point

Yes, these vehicles are now both the same.

You are confusing the issue.

Your counts as is looking at other things besides damage result. You are at looking at hull points.

The correct analogy is this:
Vic A - 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

Vic B - 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

Are the two the same? Yes they are.

For starters here is the drop pod rule:

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).

Now the only question that matters is how does a vehicle suffer an immobilized damage result? Once we figure that out we have to match the vehicles condition in all respects. Can you find a situation where a vehicle does not suffer a hull point in the process of suffering a immobilized damage result?

Again you are looking at more than the Damage Result and the rule doesnt say to count as anything other than the Damage Result.

suffered an immobilized damage result

ITs only telling us to treat it as what the result is, in all respects (i,e follow what the immobizled result is), it isnt telling us to apply the whole process though (hull then damage table result), this is where I disagree with you buddy.

40k-noob wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

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.

Yes nothing else because it doesn't say anything else.

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized damage result"

Not

"counts in all respects as a vehicle that has taken a hit and suffered an immobilized damage result"


The damage result is separate from the Armor Pen Hit.

I didnt say it took a hit anywhere.. that does not matter.

To be treated the same in all aspects.

An example:

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point (as any immobolized result only comes with a result of -1 hull point, its not possible to suffer an immobolized result without losing a hull point)

Vehicle B is immobolized with full hull points

Answer: No they are not the same in all area's.

Is vehicle A exactly the same as vehicle B?

Vehicle A is immobolized and -1 hull point

Vehicle B is immobolized and -1 hull point

Yes, these vehicles are now both the same.

You are confusing the issue.

Your counts as is looking at other things besides damage result. You are at looking at hull points.

The correct analogy is this:
Vic A - 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

Vic B - 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

Are the two the same? Yes they are.

For starters here is the drop pod rule:

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).

Now the only question that matters is how does a vehicle suffer an immobilized damage result? Once we figure that out we have to match the vehicles condition in all respects. Can you find a situation where a vehicle does not suffer a hull point in the process of suffering a immobilized damage result?

Again you are looking at more than the Damage Result and the rule doesnt say to count as anything other than the Damage Result.

It doesnt say suffer an immobilized result. You are mimicking a vehicle that has met that result.

If the rule stated the drop pod is immobilized. Or didn't address that it had to be the same in all respects then this wouldn't be an argument.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Your FAQ citation still does not say the Drop Pod suffers the loss of a Hull Point. It just says if one gets shot, penetrated, and has another Immobilised result then it does to Weapon Destroyed instead.

Which is an altogether different problem, since it's referring to 5th edition rules. Multiple Immobilised results don't count as weapon destroyed in 6th edition.

Tomb King wrote:

It doesnt say suffer an immobilized result. You are mimicking a vehicle that has met that result.

If the rule stated the drop pod is immobilized. Or didn't address that it had to be the same in all respects then this wouldn't be an argument.

You continue to insist that the the two (Vic A and Vic B) must be exactly the same but the rule explicitly forbids that.

For example:
Vic A(Rhino) gets immobilized = Can't move and -1 HP
should be the same for Vic B(Drop Pod)
Yet the rule is explicit in that the DP cannot be repaired while a Rhino can.
So your insistence that two must be the same is neither RAW nor RAI.

This is a special rule to affirm that a DP cannot move after landing and that is it.

40k-noob wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

It doesnt say suffer an immobilized result. You are mimicking a vehicle that has met that result.

If the rule stated the drop pod is immobilized. Or didn't address that it had to be the same in all respects then this wouldn't be an argument.

You continue to insist that the the two (Vic A and Vic B) must be exactly the same but the rule explicitly forbids that.

For example:
Vic A(Rhino) gets immobilized = Can't move and -1 HP
should be the same for Vic B(Drop Pod)
Yet the rule is explicit in that the DP cannot be repaired while a Rhino can.
So your insistence that two must be the same is neither RAW nor RAI.

This is a special rule to affirm that a DP cannot move after landing and that is it.

They are the same in all regards.
Except the rule includes this one exception: (which cannot be repaired in any way).

 Tomb King wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

It doesnt say suffer an immobilized result. You are mimicking a vehicle that has met that result.

If the rule stated the drop pod is immobilized. Or didn't address that it had to be the same in all respects then this wouldn't be an argument.

You continue to insist that the the two (Vic A and Vic B) must be exactly the same but the rule explicitly forbids that.

For example:
Vic A(Rhino) gets immobilized = Can't move and -1 HP
should be the same for Vic B(Drop Pod)
Yet the rule is explicit in that the DP cannot be repaired while a Rhino can.
So your insistence that two must be the same is neither RAW nor RAI.

This is a special rule to affirm that a DP cannot move after landing and that is it.

They are the same in all regards.
Except the rule includes this one exception: (which cannot be repaired in any way).

so they are the same but not the same? Sounds like Animal Farm.

Oh well, I have made my case. I can't do anymore than that.

 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 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?

No, you don't.. The drop pod rule does not say it suffers a glance and counts as immobile. It simply states the model counts as having suffered an immobilised damage result. C:SM under drop pods. There is no damage check, no save, nothing. Extrapolating from the DT FAQ is not RAW, it is stretching to find a RAI. There is nothing beyond opinion to enforce that a DP should lose a hull point, until GW puts out a FAQ stating that. It is a gray area. You can shout the DT FAq all you want, but it is not directly applicable to special rule units like DP or Sensor Towers, nor does the Immobile damage result automaticly remove a hull point

(Will check building rules as I think there is somethere that applies)

barnowl 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 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?

No, you don't.. The drop pod rule does not say it suffers a glance and counts as immobile. It simply states the model counts as having suffered an immobilised damage result. C:SM under drop pods. There is no damage check, no save, nothing. Extrapolating from the DT FAQ is not RAW, it is stretching to find a RAI. There is nothing beyond opinion to enforce that a DP should lose a hull point, until GW puts out a FAQ stating that. It is a gray area. You can shout the DT FAq all you want, but it is not directly applicable to special rule units like DP or Sensor Towers, nor does the Immobile damage result automaticly remove a hull point

(Will check building rules as I think there is somethere that applies)

As stated before you probably wanna read the rest of thread before jumping into a solved portion and building an argument on it.

 Tomb King wrote:
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?

So in other words, you shoot a vehicle with a krak missile, roll a penetrating hit (which causes a hull point to go missing) and then the damage chart gets rolled resulting in an immobilize causing another hull point to go? I hope you don't have too many arks in your army.

Edit:

Page 74 wrote:

Glancing hits:
If a glancing hit was scored, the vehicle loses I Hull Point.

Penetrating Hits:
If a penetrating hit was scored, the vehicle not only loses 1 Hull
Point, but also suffers additional damage. After deducting any
Hull Points, roll aD6 for each shot that penetrated the
vehicle's armour. Apply any appropriate modifiers (they are all
cumulative) and look up the result using the Vehicle Damage
table on the left. You must roll on the vehicle Damage table
even if the vehicle loses sufficient Hull Points to be Wrecked,
as there is still a chance that it Explodes!

So by your logic, the hull point gets deducted for the penetrating hit, then another for immobilize, and if another immobilize results comes up one something already immobilized it would take 3 hull points??? Where is the logic here?

Khalbrae wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
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?

So in other words, you shoot a vehicle with a krak missile, roll a penetrating hit (which causes a hull point to go missing) and then the damage chart gets rolled resulting in an immobilize causing another hull point to go? I hope you don't have too many arks in your army.

Not quite. Just identified that no matter what happened to get a vehicle immobilized every route to achieve that possible also lost a hull point.

 Tomb King wrote:

barnowl 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 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?

No, you don't.. The drop pod rule does not say it suffers a glance and counts as immobile. It simply states the model counts as having suffered an immobilised damage result. C:SM under drop pods. There is no damage check, no save, nothing. Extrapolating from the DT FAQ is not RAW, it is stretching to find a RAI. There is nothing beyond opinion to enforce that a DP should lose a hull point, until GW puts out a FAQ stating that. It is a gray area. You can shout the DT FAq all you want, but it is not directly applicable to special rule units like DP or Sensor Towers, nor does the Immobile damage result automaticly remove a hull point

(Will check building rules as I think there is somethere that applies)

As stated before you probably wanna read the rest of thread before jumping into a solved portion and building an argument on it.

I did, and I don't think you solved anything, hence my post.

The Rulebook specifically states as per my quotation that a hull point is removed when the unit suffers a glancing or penetrating hit before any roll is made on the table. It is the glance/pen according to the rules that causes the point loss.

Note that I am an Eldar player and don't have any vested interest in preserving drop pods (things can rot for all I care) but the immobilized result on the damage table does not cause an additional hull point loss unless already immobilized.

Failing a difficult terrain test (something entirely situational) has been retroactively been changed to be a pseudo-hit. It removes a hull point as your vehicle takes damage from the bushes or whatever gunk up your wheels/exhaust ports. But that clearly is stated in the FAQ to only apply to Difficult terrain tests.

The Drop pods start the game immobilized, they do not take any sort of test or hit in order to gain the immobilized result. To say that anything causing immobilized removes a hull point is to essentially argue for immobilize results removing a second hull point from any vehicle.

(Says the pointed eared interloper)

It is treated as though it rolled a 5 on the chart, without taking the hit to do so.

As always, if you truly want to argue with your opponent about it though you can give them two options:

1: Friendly roll off.
2: Pick up and leave as it's not worth anybody's time getting upset over little plastic men.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but regardless of RAW (and I personally agree with the HP loss) I don't play with the loss.

If Immobilized result causes the loss of a Hull Point (Drop Pod, Dangerous Terrain fail, etc.), then does a Penetrating hit that causes Immobilized cause the loss of two (2) Hull Points? One from the Penetrating hit, the other from Immobilized.

See FAQ for the part about including Hull Point loss in Immobilized.

Luide wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
This is correct. No matter HOW you look at it. A vehicle can only suffer from an immobilization and lose a hull point if you rolled on the damage chart. Period. Since you dont roll on the VDC when dropping in, you do not lose a hull point. It only mentions being immobile so that there isnt confusion about weather it can move or not

Please read the FAQ before making unfounded arguments like this. I've included it here and underlined the relevant portion:

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”.

Note that this FAQ explicitly states that your argument is wrong. Vehicle can will lose hull point from being Immobilized, even if they did not rell on the damage chart. Period.
Edit: In fact, that FAQ states that suffering Immobilised result always includes losing one Hull Point.

OK now youre taking things a bit out of context. Youre using dangerous terrain tests, to explain why someone using a Drop pod gets an auto HP taken away? Man, your gaming group must LOVE playing with you.


I dont care how you throw rules and FAQs around and pretend to be all knowing, YOU DO NOT take a HP off a DropPod just because it comes into play. Not how the game works.

Khalbrae wrote:

(Says the pointed eared interloper)

QFT. Honestly, everyone pointing to FAQ's and such - y'all need to read your rulebooks before your FAQ's. I see older players make more mistakes because they think they know the rules but have things mistaken/lumped together.