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.

 kaapelikala wrote:
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.

No. The FAQ only applies to Dangerous terrain.

uberjoras wrote:

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.

In this case the faq ammends the rulebook.

No a immobilized result does not make a model lose a hull point unless its already immobilized. That isnt why the drop pod loses a hull point when it becomes immobilized. It loses a hull point because it is treated in all aspects the same as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result. To be treated the same it would have to be in the same condition as said vehicle. No matter how a vehicle becomes immobolized whether it be from a penetrated result and a 5 on the damage table or if it fails a difficult/dangerous terrain check it loses a hull point. Basically for a vehicle to be immobilized in 40k it had to suffer a loss of a hull point to get there. So to treat it 100% like a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result it too would have to be -1 hull point.

See the below rule for drop pod called immobile for further clarification on why this standard is set.

An immobilised result does not include -1HP though it is just the stuff listed under immobilised.
So a vehicle suffers a pen, it looses 1 Hp and then it gains an immobilised result. It's an a causes b and c, just because a causes c does not mean that c happening mandates b.

You are adding in more than is being said.

Indeed,

A mandates B+C

E mandates C.

It is fallacious to assume that E mandates B because it has C.

No, A mandates B (which is clarified to include C).
D mandates B.

You're asserting that B only sometimes includes C.

Can you all name a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized without losing a hull point?

Not the way I read it.


The rules say that when you take a Penetrating hit(A) you lose a Hull Point(B) and roll on the damage chart(C)

E(Drop Pod) mandates you automatically become Immobilized(C, kinda)

You are erroniously asserting that C mandates B when it never says that anywhere and they are clearly seperate results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:
Can you all name a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized without losing a hull point?

Sure, Drop Pods.

According to the DT rules, an Immobilized result includes Hull Point loss.

 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).

How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?

 Tomb King 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).

How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?

When a vehicle suffers an immobilised result, unless it is already immobilised it doesn't lose a hull point, it loses a hull point when it is glanced or penetrated. There is a subtle but VERY important difference there.

Also every one posting the FAQ regarding losing a hull point as well as an immobilised result, it has absolutely no relevance to this situation, the FAQ states that is only for DT, otherwise it would say, when a vehicle becomes Immobilised from a Dangerous terrain test, or by any other means, does it also lose a hull point?

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Tomb King 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).

How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?

When a vehicle suffers an immobilised result, unless it is already immobilised it doesn't lose a hull point, it loses a hull point when it is glanced or penetrated. There is a subtle but VERY important difference there.

Also every one posting the FAQ regarding losing a hull point as well as an immobilised result, it has absolutely no relevance to this situation, the FAQ states that is only for DT, otherwise it would say, when a vehicle becomes Immobilised from a Dangerous terrain test, or by any other means, does it also lose a hull point?

Then how can it be the same as a vehicle that suffered an immobilized result if it is not the same condition? In every situation in which a vehicle suffered that result it is also without a whole point in the process. The faq just states another way this process comes to be. For the vehicle to be the same in all respects. It needs to be -1 HP.

 Tomb King wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Tomb King 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).

How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?

When a vehicle suffers an immobilised result, unless it is already immobilised it doesn't lose a hull point, it loses a hull point when it is glanced or penetrated. There is a subtle but VERY important difference there.

Also every one posting the FAQ regarding losing a hull point as well as an immobilised result, it has absolutely no relevance to this situation, the FAQ states that is only for DT, otherwise it would say, when a vehicle becomes Immobilised from a Dangerous terrain test, or by any other means, does it also lose a hull point?

Then how can it be the same as a vehicle that suffered an immobilized result if it is not the same condition? In every situation in which a vehicle suffered that result it is also without a whole point in the process. The faq just states another way this process comes to be. For the vehicle to be the same in all respects. It needs to be -1 HP.

Then why no FAQ? If they went to the trouble of explaining it for DT tests, why not Drop Pods? And please don't say because its GW.


Edit*

Sorry just realised that I completely ignored your question, the wording is a carry over from 5th, and I think it needs an errata. Do Dark Angels have Drop Pods? If so this may all become mute when they get released on Saturday as they will have the 6th Ed, wording for the Drop pods.

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Tomb King 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).

How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?

When a vehicle suffers an immobilised result, unless it is already immobilised it doesn't lose a hull point, it loses a hull point when it is glanced or penetrated. There is a subtle but VERY important difference there.

Also every one posting the FAQ regarding losing a hull point as well as an immobilised result, it has absolutely no relevance to this situation, the FAQ states that is only for DT, otherwise it would say, when a vehicle becomes Immobilised from a Dangerous terrain test, or by any other means, does it also lose a hull point?

Then how can it be the same as a vehicle that suffered an immobilized result if it is not the same condition? In every situation in which a vehicle suffered that result it is also without a whole point in the process. The faq just states another way this process comes to be. For the vehicle to be the same in all respects. It needs to be -1 HP.

Then why no FAQ? If they went to the trouble of explaining it for DT tests, why not Drop Pods? And please don't say because its GW.

Is this really the first time that question has been asked in this particular forum? Either way I am sure of my answer and you all are sure of yours... you will have to get with the TO before the event. Before this thread I assumed everyone was taking the penalty but I usually only play locally and big tournaments.

 Tomb King wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Tomb King 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).

How can you follow this rule without losing a hull point when every time a vehicle suffers and immobilized result it also loses a hull point?

When a vehicle suffers an immobilised result, unless it is already immobilised it doesn't lose a hull point, it loses a hull point when it is glanced or penetrated. There is a subtle but VERY important difference there.

Also every one posting the FAQ regarding losing a hull point as well as an immobilised result, it has absolutely no relevance to this situation, the FAQ states that is only for DT, otherwise it would say, when a vehicle becomes Immobilised from a Dangerous terrain test, or by any other means, does it also lose a hull point?

Then how can it be the same as a vehicle that suffered an immobilized result if it is not the same condition? In every situation in which a vehicle suffered that result it is also without a whole point in the process. The faq just states another way this process comes to be. For the vehicle to be the same in all respects. It needs to be -1 HP.

Then why no FAQ? If they went to the trouble of explaining it for DT tests, why not Drop Pods? And please don't say because its GW.

Is this really the first time that question has been asked in this particular forum? Either way I am sure of my answer and you all are sure of yours... you will have to get with the TO before the event. Before this thread I assumed everyone was taking the penalty but I usually only play locally and big tournaments.

Can you please read my post-post editing, so I don't come across as using that as an avoidance tactic, I don't play in tournaments, and OP you will best to resolve this in your own way locally until there is an official wording form the powers that be.

I concur that Drop Pods suffer the hull point loss. The Dangerous Terrain ruling is a FAQ clarification, not an errata, and as such establishes a clear precedent.

 Tomb King wrote:
Can you all name a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized without losing a hull point?

It doesn't matter if it happens one time or a hundred times. The point is, it doesn't happen this time.

To assume that because it happens 99 times out of 100, that it also happens that 100th time is a logical fallacy. It is the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. You cannot determine whether or not one example is true or false because there are 99 other examples like it that are true.

It is simply incorrect. If you see 99 red cars drive by, it is logically fallacious to say that the next one is going to be red.

Regardless of how many other examples there are, this one, very specific example says nothing of DT tests, glancing or penetrating hits. So, since you have not been told to use any of the three conventions to remove a hull point, you have no permission to take a hull point away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:


For starters a drop pod does not start the game immobilized. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to put it anywhere on the board during your movement phase.

Also, this is wrong. While you may be correct about the drop pod itself, there are immobile units that move onto the board during their movement phase. Once again, you're applying faulty logic.

That, and page 125 defines how they get onto the board. First paragraph.

 puma713 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Can you all name a situation where a vehicle becomes immobilized without losing a hull point?

It doesn't matter if it happens one time or a hundred times. The point is, it doesn't happen this time.

To assume that because it happens 99 times out of 100, that it also happens that 100th time is a logical fallacy. It is the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. You cannot determine whether or not one example is true or false because there are 99 other examples like it that are true.

It is simply incorrect. If you see 99 red cars drive by, it is logically fallacious to say that the next one is going to be red.

Regardless of how many other examples there are, this one, very specific example says nothing of DT tests, glancing or penetrating hits. So, since you have not been told to use any of the three conventions to remove a hull point, you have no permission to take a hull point away.

Not 99 out of 100. I only bet 100%


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:


For starters a drop pod does not start the game immobilized. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to put it anywhere on the board during your movement phase.

Also, this is wrong. While you may be correct about the drop pod itself, there are immobile units that move onto the board during their movement phase. Once again, you're applying faulty logic.

That, and page 125 defines how they get onto the board. First paragraph.

Actually per drop pod rules they become immobile once it has entered the battle.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I concur that Drop Pods suffer the hull point loss. The Dangerous Terrain ruling is a FAQ clarification, not an errata, and as such establishes a clear precedent.

A precedent for what? That failing a DT causes a loss of a hull point? That's great.

Too bad the Drop pod didn't fail a DT. It also didn't suffer a glancing or penetrating hit. What it did do, is suffer an immobilised result on the damage table. To which you may argue, "How do you do that without suffering a hit, or failing a DT test?" To which the answer is, You enter play as a drop pod.

All you need to know is that the rules tell you that it suffered an immobilised damage result. It did not do any of the three things that give you permission to remove a hull point.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:


Not 99 out of 100. I only bet 100%

And hence you defend a flawed argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:


For starters a drop pod does not start the game immobilized. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to put it anywhere on the board during your movement phase.

Also, this is wrong. While you may be correct about the drop pod itself, there are immobile units that move onto the board during their movement phase. Once again, you're applying faulty logic.

That, and page 125 defines how they get onto the board. First paragraph.

Actually per drop pod rules they become immobile once it has entered the battle.

Which is why I said, ". . you may be correct about the drop pod itself, . . ."

 puma713 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I concur that Drop Pods suffer the hull point loss. The Dangerous Terrain ruling is a FAQ clarification, not an errata, and as such establishes a clear precedent.

A precedent for what? That failing a DT causes a loss of a hull point? That's great.

No, it sets the precedent in that it shows (because of how it is worded) that GW consider the loss of the hull point to be a part of taking damage. The vehicle is immobilised - including losing a hull point. That hull point can only be 'included' if it is a part of being immobilised. Otherwise, it's additional, not [/i]included[/i].

 insaniak wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I concur that Drop Pods suffer the hull point loss. The Dangerous Terrain ruling is a FAQ clarification, not an errata, and as such establishes a clear precedent.

A precedent for what? That failing a DT causes a loss of a hull point? That's great.

No, it sets the precedent in that it shows (because of how it is worded) that GW consider the loss of the hull point to be a part of taking damage. The vehicle is immobilised - including losing a hull point. That hull point can only be 'included' if it is a part of being immobilised. Otherwise, it's additional, not [/i]included[/i].

Okay, I can see what he means by precedent. You still have to make a logical leap to say that because three types of immobilised results end in the loss of a hull point, then so does a drop pod's landing.

A hull point is lost because a vehicle did one of three things: took a glancing hit, took a penetrating hit, or failed a DT test. Did the drop pod do any of those things?

I mis-wrote that it's not an errata- of course it is an errata. There's actually both a FAQ and an errata, but the phrasing of the errata expresses that suffering the loss of a hull point is the consequence of being Immobilized, and the FAQ question is where it tells us that just by landing, a drop pod is treated as having suffered an Immobilized result.

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”.

Then, in light of that, read what the SM FAQ has to say about Drop Pods:

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

Now this FAQ answer needs to be updated, as it is clearly referring to 5th ed vehicle damage processes (a second Immobilized result becoming Weapon Destroyed, as opposed to instead causing loss of two hull points, as it does now). Still, the meaning here is clear. A drop pod is treated as having suffered an Immobilized damage result.

 Mannahnin wrote:
A drop pod is treated as having suffered an Immobilized damage result.

I completely agree. However, there is no preclusion for losing a hull point and rolling on the damage table. You don't lose a hull point because you rolled on the damage table, you lose a hull point because you did one of the three things I listed above. The drop pod, no matter how it received its roll on the damage table, did not suffer a glancing hit, a penetrating hit or a failed DT test.

It is treated as if it it rolled a 5 on the damage table in all respects. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how it got to roll on the damage table itself (if it was a roll).

Edit:

I guess the point we'll have to agree to disagree on is the fact that the FAQ gives you permission to remove a hull point simply by virtue of mentioning it in accordance with immobilised results. I don't think that is enough to give you permission, and you do. It reminds me alot of the old FAQ answer about splitting combat squads from reserves. Everyone thought that meant that you couldn't split at all when in fact it meant that you simply couldn't drop one in and leave one out. Folks read the answer to a single question and applied it to the rules in general and caused a misinterpretation of the FAQ.

The errata on vehicles and dangerous terrain tests makes clear that if you suffer an immoblized result, even if it wasn't; via taking a glancing or penetrating hit, you lose a hull point.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The errata on vehicles and dangerous terrain tests makes clear that if you suffer an immoblized result, even if it wasn't; via taking a glancing or penetrating hit, you lose a hull point.

I disagree. If it was clear, there would be no discussion. I think all the FAQ did was clarify that if you fail a DT test, that you lose a hull point. It has no bearing whatsoever on any other way that you might become immobilised.

Again, as I said above, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think you're right that we're at an impasse. For me, them saying "...suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”, clearly communicates that suffering an Immobilized result inevitably includes losing a hull point, no matter how you managed to suffer that Immobilized result.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think you're right that we're at an impasse. For me, them saying "...suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”, clearly communicates that suffering an Immobilized result inevitably includes losing a hull point, no matter how you managed to suffer that Immobilized result.

I would agree with you if that's all the sentence said. But the first half of the sentence makes it clear (to me) that they're talking about failing a dangerous terrain test. It is another example of poor wording by GW - they forget that suffering a glancing hit, penetrating hit or failing a DT test is not the only way to become immobilised and so leave open a question by answering another one.

Classic GW.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think you're right that we're at an impasse. For me, them saying "...suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”, clearly communicates that suffering an Immobilized result inevitably includes losing a hull point, no matter how you managed to suffer that Immobilized result.

But that is still failing a DT (you get to roll dice) having a glance or pen (you get to roll dice) but with how you would play a drop pod regardless of how you are going to put it down its instantly immobizled and loses a HP without rolling dice. Immoilized results are usually in game while playing this is simply deploying the drop pod so i would say this is the precedent

 Mannahnin wrote:
The errata on vehicles and dangerous terrain tests makes clear that if you suffer an immoblized result, even if it wasn't; via taking a glancing or penetrating hit, you lose a hull point.

To me, what is clear that the DT test FAQ is that if a *mobile* vehicle becomes immobile, that can only be achieved by some form of damage to said vehicle.

OTH, if a vehicle is designed to be immobile, like Drop Pods and various weapons platforms, then they are exempt from the from damage because they are designed to be immobilized. It wasn't damage that inflicted their immobility, it was their design.

That might be what's intended.
But the rule says its suffered exactly as a damage result.

FenixZero wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The errata on vehicles and dangerous terrain tests makes clear that if you suffer an immoblized result, even if it wasn't; via taking a glancing or penetrating hit, you lose a hull point.

To me, what is clear that the DT test FAQ is that if a *mobile* vehicle becomes immobile, that can only be achieved by some form of damage to said vehicle.

OTH, if a vehicle is designed to be immobile, like Drop Pods and various weapons platforms, then they are exempt from the from damage because they are designed to be immobilized. It wasn't damage that inflicted their immobility, it was their design.

Agreed. Next you all are going to say that a SPOD looses a wound because it too comes into play like a Drop Pod and is also immobile.


Immobile is a result, it is what it is. Just because you normally get that result from DT test or through pens, doesnt mean that the result itself causes the HP loss. Only the DT test being failed OR taking a glance or pen causes HP loss