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.

Except the Spod is not immobilised exactly like a vehicle. It just cannot move for any reason.

Ok I see what both sides are saying but here is something I dont understand, how does the faq about how dang test have anything to do with counting as immobile?

Because prior to the FAQ, the hull point loss was tied into suffering a glancing/penetrating hit. After the FAQ suffering a result on the Damage Table includes the loss of a hull point. Since (with the possible exception of Immobile vehicles) there is no way to be Immobilised without losing a hull point, logically, if an immobile vehicle is treated in all respects as a vehicle that suffered an Immobilised result, that would include the loss of a hull point.

I would think that if it was intended for a drop pod to lose a hull point when it came into play there would have been something in the C:SM FAQ for the drop pod entry that said "...and loses one hull point."

It just doesn't seem intended to me, why would you take damage from arriving in your intended manner? I understand a mishap or scatter onto DT, but just coming and losing a hull point seems stupid TBH.

I agree that it does not seem intended, however, add it is written...

On that note I do not force my opponents to take the hull point loss.

Well, as it's written you lose a hull point from taking a glancing or penetrating hit or failing a DT test. Drop Pods don't qualify for any of those, unless it's dropped in DT.

 Happyjew wrote:
Because prior to the FAQ, the hull point loss was tied into suffering a glancing/penetrating hit. After the FAQ suffering a result on the Damage Table includes the loss of a hull point. Since (with the possible exception of Immobile vehicles) there is no way to be Immobilised without losing a hull point, logically, if an immobile vehicle is treated in all respects as a vehicle that suffered an Immobilised result, that would include the loss of a hull point.

This is wrong.

The FAQ/Errata is not stating that the HP loss is included in the Immobilized damage result, it is saying that it is included in the damage as a result of failing the test.
In other words, if you fail the test you suffer A+B.

To say otherwise would mean that vehicles that do suffer a Pen hit and are then Immobilized from the damage roll would lose two HP from one hit and that is clearly not true.

A drop pod, as per it's rules in C:SM has the special rule Immobile : "A drop pod cannot move once it has entered the battle and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised damage result (which cannot be repaired in any way)"

How do you treat a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised damage result? : "An immoblisied vehicle cannot move - it may not even pivot, but it's turret may continue to rotate to select targets and other weapons retain their normal arcs of fire. Any Immobilised results suffered by an already immoblised vehicle instead remove an additional Hull Point".

The Drop Pod "Counts in all respects as a vehicle that HAS suffered an immobilised damage result", not that "is in the process of suffering" the result. A vehicle that has already suffered an immoblised damage result is treated as quoted above. No more, no less.

The drop pod is not sufferING an immobilised result. It is treated as a vehicle that HAS SUFFERED an immobilised result. The Immobilised result, having already been suffered, does not have the loss of further HP just because it's immobilised (unless you get another immobilised result on the already immobilised vehicle).

There is no DT test. There is no pen/glance. There is nothing about a loss of a hull point. The constant quotes of the FAQ apply to a specific circumstance and are not generic rules clarifications. If you assume that a FAQ reply applies to ALL circumstances that are remotely related (rather than the specific situation outlined in the FAQ) then the FAQ's break the game even more than it already is.

People seem to be repeating themselves ad nauseum and no listenng to each other.

I suppose I must excuse myself from this conversation.

Remember:

1: I do not make people take a hull point loss and I don't even play SM
2: You should always do a friendly roll off if possible.

 KingCracker wrote:

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

Leave my Spores out of this, GW has already nerf batted us enough.

FenixZero wrote:
It just doesn't seem intended to me, why would you take damage from arriving in your intended manner? I understand a mishap or scatter onto DT, but just coming and losing a hull point seems stupid TBH.

That is precisely why most arguments such as this find there way in the You Make Da Call forum. It sucks and people dont like negative things to happen even if we could prove 99.9% that it loses the hull points people would still fight it because they only see the negative change. Its a 35 point open topped vehicle that you can now land and disembark up to 6" away from. That is quite an advantageous change to the previous stand huddled up next to the door.

FenixZero wrote:
It just doesn't seem intended to me, why would you take damage from arriving in your intended manner? I understand a mishap or scatter onto DT, but just coming and losing a hull point seems stupid TBH.

When the drop pod was first introduced as a model, you got victory points just for damaging vehicles... and drop pods granted victory points just by deploying, as they counted as having suffered an immobilised result, and so were considered damaged the moment they deployed.

It took a GW FAQ for people to accept that that was the correct way to play due to it being mind-numbingly stupid as well. But it was how the rules were written to work.



So yes, it would be lovely to think that losing a hull point just for landing would be silly and that there is no way GW intended it... but past experience suggests that they are just as likely, if not more so, to rule the other way on this one.

 insaniak wrote:

FenixZero wrote:
It just doesn't seem intended to me, why would you take damage from arriving in your intended manner? I understand a mishap or scatter onto DT, but just coming and losing a hull point seems stupid TBH.

When the drop pod was first introduced as a model, you got victory points just for damaging vehicles... and drop pods granted victory points just by deploying, as they counted as having suffered an immobilised result, and so were considered damaged the moment they deployed.

It took a GW FAQ for people to accept that that was the correct way to play due to it being mind-numbingly stupid as well. But it was how the rules were written to work.



So yes, it would be lovely to think that losing a hull point just for landing would be silly and that there is no way GW intended it... but past experience suggests that they are just as likely, if not more so, to rule the other way on this one.

I left D&D to play this game why again?

OK two things to this:

1.: Following the interpretation of an auto-hull point loss would necessarily result in the drop pod being wrecked as soon as it fails a dangerous terrain test from landing.

2: Suffering an immobilized result =! counts as immobile (immobile is in fact not even described in the rules...)
But even if we paraphrase it to "counts as having suffered an immobilized result" (which is imho no strict RAW especially together with forcing a precedence from the dangerous terrain FAQ) then we must define when it actually suffered the result. Because stripping off a HP afterwards isn't legal imho.

FenixZero wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

FenixZero wrote:
It just doesn't seem intended to me, why would you take damage from arriving in your intended manner? I understand a mishap or scatter onto DT, but just coming and losing a hull point seems stupid TBH.

When the drop pod was first introduced as a model, you got victory points just for damaging vehicles... and drop pods granted victory points just by deploying, as they counted as having suffered an immobilised result, and so were considered damaged the moment they deployed.

It took a GW FAQ for people to accept that that was the correct way to play due to it being mind-numbingly stupid as well. But it was how the rules were written to work.



So yes, it would be lovely to think that losing a hull point just for landing would be silly and that there is no way GW intended it... but past experience suggests that they are just as likely, if not more so, to rule the other way on this one.

I left D&D to play this game why again?

Because you wanted to hang with the Cool Nerds!!

 Happyjew wrote:
Except the Spod is not immobilised exactly like a vehicle. It just cannot move for any reason.

Exactly. Which is the same reason they said the drop pod is immobile. Because its treated like a vehicle otherwise, and they need a reason to tell you WHY it cannot move.

 Tomb King wrote:
It sucks and people dont like negative things to happen even if we could prove 99.9% that it loses the hull points people would still fight it because they only see the negative change.

Or simply because they don't agree with the line of reasoning that you've presented. Someone that doesn't play Space Marines in any way, shape or form would probably fall into the category of simply not agreeing, since the ruling would do nothing but benefit them.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
2: Suffering an immobilized result =! counts as immobile (immobile is in fact not even described in the rules...)

Uh... Immobile is the same as having suffered an Immobilised result, and this is described in the Drop Pod rules in the SM codex...

@Insaniak

OK I stand corrected. Proper reading is always quite good...
But there is still the discrepancy of "having suffered" and "is suffering" concerning HP.
And the FAQ is still about immobilized results from failed dangerous terain tests and not about pen results or immobilized results in general.
This connection is made up imho.

The specific scenario being dealt with by the FAQ is DT, yes.

But the response given is tying the HP loss in with the damage. What the FAQ is saying is that suffering an Immobilised damage result includes losing a hull point.

 insaniak wrote:

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
2: Suffering an immobilized result =! counts as immobile (immobile is in fact not even described in the rules...)

Uh... Immobile is the same as having suffered an Immobilised result, and this is described in the Drop Pod rules in the SM codex...

Nice! So all fortifications lose a hull point at the start of the game! Woot.

Edit:

I realize you were talking about Immobile from the Drop Pods rules. . . .

And that buildings don't use hull points. . .

 insaniak wrote:
The specific scenario being dealt with by the FAQ is DT, yes.

But the response given is tying the HP loss in with the damage. What the FAQ is saying is that suffering an Immobilised damage result includes losing a hull point.

No it does not, it says that the failing the Dangerous Terrain Test includes a HP loss not suffering an Immobilised damage result.

The FAQ/Erata is updating the rules for Vehicles and a failed Test results in being immobilized and the loss of an HP, not that the vehicle damage result itself includes an HP loss.

Did the drop pod fail a dangerous terrain test? Did it just land? Its immobilized due to its method of entry to the battle and it has no wheels Its not suffering an imobilized hit, terrain hit or anything of the sort its just immoblile. As templar pointed out "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. " Its a valid point and its not taking a angerous terrain test like vehicles rolling a 1 so this argument is moot. I think

40k-noob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The specific scenario being dealt with by the FAQ is DT, yes.

But the response given is tying the HP loss in with the damage. What the FAQ is saying is that suffering an Immobilised damage result includes losing a hull point.

No it does not, it says that the failing the Dangerous Terrain Test includes a HP loss not suffering an Immobilised damage result.

The FAQ/Erata is updating the rules for Vehicles and a failed Test results in being immobilized and the loss of an HP, not that the vehicle damage result itself includes an HP loss.

No, it says that failing a DT test causes an immobilize result (including the loss of a hull point). Meaning that the hull point loss is tied to the immobilize result.

Pleas actually read and post the FAQ before saying its not tied to the immobilize result.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The specific scenario being dealt with by the FAQ is DT, yes.

But the response given is tying the HP loss in with the damage. What the FAQ is saying is that suffering an Immobilised damage result includes losing a hull point.

No it does not, it says that the failing the Dangerous Terrain Test includes a HP loss not suffering an Immobilised damage result.

The FAQ/Erata is updating the rules for Vehicles and a failed Test results in being immobilized and the loss of an HP, not that the vehicle damage result itself includes an HP loss.

No, it says that failing a DT test causes an immobilize result (including the loss of a hull point). Meaning that the hull point loss is tied to the immobilize result.

Pleas actually read and post the FAQ before saying its not tied to the immobilize result.

But the issue that you get is that the steps of dealing with a pen are dock a HP and then roll on the chart and apply the result.
What you get is then roll for damage, if you get an immobilisers result dock another HP because the loss of a hull point is tied to the immobilised result.
Do A(take the pen), then B (dock the HP), apply C (the roll on the table and apply the result).
If the immobilised result is tied to the loss of a HP then you loose two when you take a pen and roll that result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What the FAQ is saying is that the immobilised result and the HP is tied to failing the DT test.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
What the FAQ is saying is that the immobilised result and the HP is tied to failing the DT test.

It's really not.

What the FAQ says is that the vehicle suffers an immobilised result including the loss of a HP.

That 'including' means that the loss of the hull point is intrinsically tied to the immobilised result... because it is included within it. If it said that the vehicle sfuffers an immobilised result and also loses a hull point, then the hull point loss would be tied to the DT test rather than the damage.

If I tell you that you have to get dressed, including putting on pants, that doesn't mean that putting on pants is separate to getting dressed. It's an included part of the process... I'm just mentioning it specifically to ensure that you remember to include it.

I'm with 40k-noob here.

A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point.

Do Drop Pods count as immobilised the moment they touch down?
Also, are any immobilised hits on them counted for weapon destroyed
etc?
Yes.

The loss of the hull point in this case is only happening due to taking damage as a penetrating hit which was caused by the DT test.

Now because the hit isn't being rolled for instead it is simply assigned due to the more specific DT rule then for clarification in this specific case not only are you are being immobilized you are also losing a HP.

In no way is it attempting to construe a relationship between Immobilization and HP loss. Those are two different things. HP loss is due to the damage caused by the penetrating hit. The word "including" is obviously just making sure that the HP loss is accounted for in the automatic penetration from DT. The comma is important in separating out the ideas of the sentence.

Further, the second FAQ ruling doesn't say roll on the table and makes no reference to losing a HP. As a matter of fact neither the BRB nor the SM codex state that you should look at the DT rules unless you landed in DT when deep striking. So those rules don't apply.

Instead the rules are clear that it simply counts as being immobilized, not counts as having received a penetrating hit resulting in immobilization. Therefore HP loss does not occur.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:


If I tell you that you have to get dressed, including putting on pants, that doesn't mean that putting on pants is separate to getting dressed. It's an included part of the process... I'm just mentioning it specifically to ensure that you remember to include it.

Actually, in your example it is a separate command. Getting dressed might be putting on a skirt or shorts or even just a bathing suit. Whereas you are explicitly saying as part of this command you want pants to be worn.

We could get into the semantics of the word including: "contain as a secondary or subordinate element", "consider with or place into a group, class or total" if you wanted but really all that matters is that the additional item is to be considered along with the prior item thereby creating a new whole. It's not a command that all instances of the prior item should now be merged with the secondary one.

clively wrote:
The loss of the hull point in this case is only happening due to taking damage as a penetrating hit which was caused by the DT test.

Where in the DT rules does it mention a penetrating hit?

...not only are you are being immobilized you are also losing a HP.

Again, though, it doesn't say 'also', which would make it an additional effect. It says 'including'... which means it is included.

Instead the rules are clear that it simply counts as being immobilized, not counts as having received a penetrating hit resulting in immobilization. Therefore HP loss does not occur.

Except that the FAQ makes a point of mentioning that being immobilised includes losing a hull point...

Actually, in your example it is a separate command.

No, it isn't. Because 'including' means that something is 'included'.

 insaniak wrote:


If I tell you that you have to get dressed, including putting on pants, that doesn't mean that putting on pants is separate to getting dressed. It's an included part of the process... I'm just mentioning it specifically to ensure that you remember to include it.

I notice that you keep leaving out the qualifier in the sentence. If you said:

When you leave the house, you have to get dressed, including putting on pants!

Do I have to include pants if I'm not leaving the house? If so, why?