Switch Theme:

Problems with Immobile Drop Pods  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
The Hive Mind





 puma713 wrote:
 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?

No, but if you're getting dressed you do.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in ca
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar





Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

 insaniak wrote:

Except that the FAQ makes a point of mentioning that being immobilised FROM FAILING A DIFFICULT TERRAIN TEST includes losing a hull point....





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 puma713 wrote:
 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?



This works well by exchanging the words;

"When you leave the house you have to get dressed, including putting on pants"
"When you fail a difficult terrain test you suffer an immobilised result, including deducting a HP"

Take otu the "When you..." portion and it's an entirely different situation as the qualifier for the statement is gone.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/09 23:49:28


 
   
Made in us
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration





rigeld2 wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 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?

No, but if you're getting dressed you do.




No, getting dressed does not necessarily mean putting on pants. As I highlighted before that act obviously might mean wearing a skirt, shorts, bathing suit, etc; any of which is perfectly valid depending upon the circumstance requiring you to "get dressed". Therefore pants was not a required article of clothing until this specific command about leaving the house forced it.

In the same vein, being immobilized does not mean losing a HP. However, because the normal rules for vehicle damage are being side stepped by the DT process, GW felt it was necessary to explicitly state that you lose a HP when a DT test is failed.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/01/09 23:53:57


------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

rigeld2 wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 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?

No, but if you're getting dressed you do.


Again, that ignores the qualifier. The point is, there are 3 ways to lose a hull point. Glancing hit, penetrating hit, or failing a DT test. If suffering an immobilised result automatically generates the loss of a hull point, then you lose two on each penetrating hit that rolls a 5. One for the pen, and one for the immobilised result.

WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration





 puma713 wrote:

Again, that ignores the qualifier. The point is, there are 3 ways to lose a hull point. Glancing hit, penetrating hit, or failing a DT test. If suffering an immobilised result automatically generates the loss of a hull point, then you lose two on each penetrating hit that rolls a 5. One for the pen, and one for the immobilised result.


Before nosferatu jumps in, there are a few more ways such as Entropic Strike. However, the core of what you are saying is true. If "immobilised" itself causes a HP loss then every single time that comes up on the vehicle damage result you have to lose 2 points. Which is clearly not the rule set.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/09 23:58:21


------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect 
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





Manhatten, KS

Wait... now I am lost? Why am I putting on pants again?

Here is an example:
Drop pod comes in and lands.
It is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized result so it become immobilized and loses a hull point.

See now wasn't that easy? Any questions?

TK - 2012 40K GT Record 18-5
4th in 2nd bracket Feast of Blades 2012 (IG/SoB); 4th Overall Midwest Massacre (IG/SW); 5th Overall Indy Open (IG); Final 16 Adepticon Open (IG)

TK - 2013 40K GT Record 24-4
Best General Indy Open (Crons/CSM)
Top 5! Bugeater GT (TauDar)
Final 4 Nova Invitational (Eldau)
Best Overall Midwest Massacre (Crons/CSM)

TK- 2014 to Date: http://www.torrentoffire.com/rankings 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

 Tomb King wrote:
Wait... now I am lost? Why am I putting on pants again?

Here is an example:
Drop pod comes in and lands.
It is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered and immobilized result so it become immobilized and loses a hull point.

See now wasn't that easy? Any questions?


Yep. Did you suffer a glancing hit, penetrating hit or fail a DT test?

WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in ie
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard





Ireland

Why are you taking a HP? Did it fail a DT test? Or suffer a glancing or penetrating hit?

The FAQ only adds the loss of a HP to the DT failure otherwise the example of 2 HP's lost for a pen that results in an immobilised roll on the chart is a valid part of the game mechanic. Nobody has drawn a destinction between this situation and the dp.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/10 00:18:58


It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+
1500+
2000+

For all YMDC arguements remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

My blog: http://dublin-spot-check.blogspot.ie/ 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





Except it's not.

If you suffer an immobilize a HP is included.
If you roll on the pen chart, you've already suffered a HP damage and therefore the HP is included.

If you don't roll on the pen chart you must still include a HP loss.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in ie
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard





Ireland

Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+
1500+
2000+

For all YMDC arguements remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

My blog: http://dublin-spot-check.blogspot.ie/ 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Citation needed. Where does it say that if you are immobilized you MUST lose a Hull Point too?

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 Grey Templar wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Citation needed. Where does it say that if you are immobilized you MUST lose a Hull Point too?

The oft quoted DT errata. It states that HP loss is included with the Immobilization.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

rigeld2 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Citation needed. Where does it say that if you are immobilized you MUST lose a Hull Point too?

The oft quoted DT errata. It states that HP loss is included with the Immobilization.


That only applies to DT rolls. To say it applies to anything else is making stuff up.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 Grey Templar wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Citation needed. Where does it say that if you are immobilized you MUST lose a Hull Point too?

The oft quoted DT errata. It states that HP loss is included with the Immobilization.


That only applies to DT rolls. To say it applies to anything else is making stuff up.

Sigh. That's just not true. If it was part of the DT failure it would not say that it was included in the Immobilization result.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in ie
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard





Ireland

If the DT is being used to shoehorn the loss of a HP here why is it that the PRO FAQ side aren't agreeing that the loss of HP happens again when you suffer immobilisation on the damage chart?

If the two are tied intrinsically, then you must take the second HP away. Otherwise the DT test is the only situation where the HP loss and the immobilisation result are tied and the failed DT test is causing the loss of the HP not the immobilisation.

It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+
1500+
2000+

For all YMDC arguements remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

My blog: http://dublin-spot-check.blogspot.ie/ 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





liturgies of blood wrote:If the DT is being used to shoehorn the loss of a HP here why is it that the PRO FAQ side aren't agreeing that the loss of HP happens again when you suffer immobilisation on the damage chart?

If the two are tied intrinsically, then you must take the second HP away. Otherwise the DT test is the only situation where the HP loss and the immobilisation result are tied and the failed DT test is causing the loss of the HP not the immobilisation.


rigeld2 wrote:Except it's not.

If you suffer an immobilize a HP is included.
If you roll on the pen chart, you've already suffered a HP damage and therefore the HP is included.

If you don't roll on the pen chart you must still include a HP loss.


My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in ie
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard





Ireland

Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Immobilised result =/= loosing a HP, that is the previous step. The damage steps are 1 suffer a pen, 2 take a HP, 3 roll on the vehicle damage table and apply results. The suffering of an immobilised damage result is just the roll on the table not the entire process from pen to applying the result of the vehicle damage result.
An immobile damage result is what you get on the vehicle damage result.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/10 00:43:38


It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+
1500+
2000+

For all YMDC arguements remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

My blog: http://dublin-spot-check.blogspot.ie/ 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Immobilised result =/= loosing a HP, that is the previous step.
An immobile damage result is what you get on the vehicle damage result.

If you've suffered an immobilize result on the pen table, you've suffered a HP loss, right?

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

rigeld2 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? Being treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result isn't the same as having a HP taken off. That is a separate part of the damage steps.

Because HP loss is included with the immobilization.


Citation needed. Where does it say that if you are immobilized you MUST lose a Hull Point too?

The oft quoted DT errata. It states that HP loss is included with the Immobilization.


Hence, why you lose 2, if that is the way you're playing it.

Rolling on the damage table is separate of suffering a penetrating hit, a glancing hit or failing a DT test. They are not tied together. You lose a hull point for one of three reasons: glancing hit, penetrating hit or failing a DT test. You don't lose a hull point simply because you rolled on the damage table, if you did, you'd lose 2 on *each* roll on the damage table after a pen. You might lose a hull point as a result of your roll on the damage table, but not simply because you rolled on the damage table.

So, if you're losing a hull point by virtue of "rolling an immobilised result", then you must, by definition, lose one for a pen, then lose one for rolling an immobilised result.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/10 00:45:49


WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.


So having a difference of opinion means I don't read?
And what would posting the FAQ do? It is already in this thread numerous times, and as such I have read the FAQ even more times since I have followed this thread from its beginning going back and forth reading everyone's posts and ideas.

Lets not go insinuating things that are meaningless and border on insults.

If you disagree with me then say so (which yo have said as much actually) and if you or I can convince the other then great, if not, also great.
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

rigeld2 wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Immobilised result =/= loosing a HP, that is the previous step.
An immobile damage result is what you get on the vehicle damage result.

If you've suffered an immobilize result on the pen table, you've suffered a HP loss, right?


Unless you're a drop pod, which doesn't suffer a penetrating hit, then yes.

WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





Please stop asserting that - I've shown why that isn't true.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Because GW like hidding stealth rules changes in their FAQ responses.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





For those on the -1HP side, answer me this; so then getting immobilized causes two HP to be lost if it is the result of a single shooting attack?
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

rigeld2 wrote:
Please stop asserting that - I've shown why that isn't true.


No, you've shown why you believe it is not true. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is or not.

WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

40k-noob wrote:
For those on the -1HP side, answer me this; so then getting immobilized causes two HP to be lost if it is the result of a single shooting attack?

Probably. I have no idea how it's supposed to work, though, just like I have no idea how we're supposed to resolve damage against battlements after GW changed that rule in the FAQ as well.

I get around the issue for the moment by just not playing with drop pods.

 
   
Made in ie
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard





Ireland

 insaniak wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Because GW like hidding stealth rules changes in their FAQ responses.


Well that is hard to prove in this case. Also would you like to answer the rest of that post?

It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+
1500+
2000+

For all YMDC arguements remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

My blog: http://dublin-spot-check.blogspot.ie/ 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

 insaniak wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Because GW like hidding stealth rules changes in their FAQ responses.


So, you're making your opponent take 2 hull points off when they roll immobilised results from penetrating hits? Because that is what you're saying. That suffering an immoblised result is instrinsically linked to losing a hull point.

And if you're with rigeld2 in saying that it is only talking about the hull point you lost when you rolled a penetrating hit, then the hull point is no longer instrinsically linked to the result, but to the cause of the result.


WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Please stop asserting that - I've shown why that isn't true.


No, you've shown why you believe it is not true. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is or not.

So wait - You're putting words in my mouth by saying my interpretation causes 2 HPs to be lost on rolling the result, but if I explain why that's not true that's just, like, my opinion and doesn't change the "fact" that (according to you) I'm saying 2 HP are lost?

How about you address what I've said instead of strawmaning or "slippery slope"ing me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 puma713 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why? The immobilised result says nothing about taking away a HP apart from subsequent immobilised results.

Because GW like hidding stealth rules changes in their FAQ responses.


So, you're making your opponent take 2 hull points off when they roll immobilised results from penetrating hits? Because that is what you're saying. That suffering an immoblised result is instrinsically linked to losing a hull point.

And if you're with rigeld2 in saying that it is only talking about the hull point you lost when you rolled a penetrating hit, then the hull point is no longer instrinsically linked to the result, but to the cause of the result.


And neither sentence of that is true. If you suffer an immobilized result on the pen table, have you suffered a HP loss?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/10 00:53:12


My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: