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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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

Again, you haven't explained why it's not true. I have since posted two responses to that claim which have yet to be addressed.

rigeld2 wrote:


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

I have. Twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

If you suffer an immobilized result on the pen table, have you suffered a HP loss?

In almost all cases, yes. But as you know, it is a logical fallacy to assert that if it happens in 99 cases, it will happen in the 100th case.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

I addressed it, suffering the loss of a HP and the result of damage chart are not one and the same.
For a pen you do both, for a glance you only do 1. For a DT test you do both and in the case of a drop pod(for the next two days anyway) you only count as having suffered the imobilised on the vehicle damage table.

 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.

To this point, I thought you were talking about something else, not the -2 HP thing.

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you suffer an immobilized result on the pen table, have you suffered a HP loss?

In almost all cases, yes.

So the Hull Point loss is included in the Immobilized result. Just like it's included in the Shaken, Stunned, Weapon Destroyed results.

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you suffer an immobilized result on the pen table, have you suffered a HP loss?

In almost all cases, yes.

So the Hull Point loss is included in the Immobilized result. Just like it's included in the Shaken, Stunned, Weapon Destroyed results.

Nope you suffer a HP and also suffer the vehicle damage chart's result. The rulebook says "After deducting any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour." So the vehicle damage is related to the loss of the HP but only in so much as they are caused by the same thing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is part of the resolution of the pen but that is not called for anywhere in the immobilie rule.

 liturgies of blood wrote:


Nope you suffer a HP and also suffer the vehicle damage chart's result. The rulebook says "After deducting any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour." So the vehicle damage is related to the loss of the HP but only in so much as they are caused by the same thing.


It is part of the resolution of the pen but that is not called for anywhere in the immobilie rule.

Exactly. The HP loss occurs BEFORE the pen roll. Which essentially means that it is unhooked from any result on that table. Which means that GW absolutely had to have the "..., including..." verbiage to the FAQ about the DT tests for vehicles in order for us to not be arguing about that. So, the act of getting an immobilized result from simply landing does not mean you lost a HP. Which leads us, finally, to the fact that if a drop pod lands on the table in a normal spot without any difficulty it will not lose a HP.

The steps involved are:

1. Place your marker
2. Roll scatter
3. If scatter on impassable terrain or a model, move to a safe distance.
4. If Mishap, roll on the mishap table. Handle accordingly
5. Assuming it's still on the table: Drop Pod now counts as immobilized
6. Is DP in difficult or dangerous terrain? If yes, perform DT roll.
7. If roll failed, lose 1 HP and apply "immobilized" result. Because it is already immobilized, lose weapon.
8. Passengers disembark

Done.

 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?

Drop pod lands
It is now treated in all respects as a vehicle that HAS Suffered an immobilized result. Therefore "The vehicle cannot move for the rest of the game. It may not turn either, but it's turret can continue to rotate to select targets."
Is the Drop pod unable to move? Yes
May it still target? Yes
Is it therefore treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result? Yes

No mention of hull point loss for suffering an Immobilized result.

Do you lose a hull point as a result of suffering an immobilized result? No. Hull point loss is taken PRIOR to suffering an immobilised result (in fact, prior to even rolling on the table you have already taken a hull point loss), thus the FAQ to tell you that you must also include one with a failed DT test (which is a specific case, not a general rule).

 puma713 wrote:

So, you're making your opponent take 2 hull points off when they roll immobilised results from penetrating hits?

No, because I don't think that was the intention. What I think the DT FAQ was supposed to show was that you lose a Hull point whenever you take damage, whether or not a hit occured.

That's just a personal opinion though. I have no idea whether they actually intended for Immobile vehicle to take a HP just for being deployed... I would love to say no, because that's clearly absurd... but 4th edition drop pods granting victory points suggest that GW have a different opinion as to just what constitutes 'absurd'...

Until they issue a ruling one way or the other, I'll only use pods against people I know well, and I'll allow opponents using them to play it however they see fit, because that saves arguments at the table.

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?

because you took a Pen, not because you were immobilized.

Correct. This is why Im not understanding the argument for HP loss. You suffer the HP loss FROM THE PEN THEN you roll on the VDC and thats how you suffer the immobile result. Read the actual rulebook gents, its pretty damn clear where the HP loss is tied too.

Saying you lose HP because of the dangerous terrain test in the FAQ, means you lose HP because a drop pod is immobile is just ludicrous

But but but from the DT FAQ it says we get immoblized and a hull point gone.....

Agree with the above, and Gary Templar, as I said before the HP isnt lost as there is no roll for it simply put. The DT faq is from well you guessed it dangerous terrain trying to link that to a immobile rule on drop pods to stretching it a little too much.

King - it isnt ludicrous, it is just reading the actual text exactly

INCLUDED is a strong phrase - it specifically states that an Immobilised result INCLUDES as in HAS WITH IT, IS ACCOMPANIED BY IN ALL CASES, the loss of HP

Youc annot argue against that phrase, as that is literal English comprehension.

This means that, if you take an immobilised result you SHOULD take HP loss as well - that is what "Includes" means

The non- -1HP side doesnt have a RAW argumetn against this - just one based on emotion

Puma - actually its the basis of inductive logic (1, ...,, K, K+1) so not a fallacy, just not absolute proof

nosferatu1001 wrote:
King - it isnt ludicrous, it is just reading the actual text exactly

INCLUDED is a strong phrase - it specifically states that an Immobilised result INCLUDES as in HAS WITH IT, IS ACCOMPANIED BY IN ALL CASES, the loss of HP

Youc annot argue against that phrase, as that is literal English comprehension.

This means that, if you take an immobilised result you SHOULD take HP loss as well - that is what "Includes" means

The non- -1HP side doesnt have a RAW argumetn against this - just one based on emotion

Literal English comprehension requires the inclusion of the qualifier for the statement however. "“A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”."

The qualifier is "A vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain test", which is not not a generic "A vehicle that suffers any immobilised result includes the lose of one hull point".
This is not emotion. This is literal English comprehension.

And once again : A drop pod becomes immobilised and is treated as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised result.
HOW do you treat a vehicle that HAS SUFFERED an immobilised result? "The vehicle cannot move for the rest of the game. It may not turn either, but it's turret can continue to rotate to select targets."
You don't remove a hull point because of the immoblised result on the chart. That comes PRIOR to the immobilised result.
The DT FAQ entry is a qualifier. It adds the loss of a HP due to a failed DT roll. It does not change any rules, it merely adds to a specific circumstance.
If it were to remove a HP for ANY immobilised result then the HP loss would have to be doubled when you roll that specific result on the Pen damage table, as you are trying to tie the loss of the HP to any and all immobilised results. The rules do NOT say that.

 insaniak wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

So, you're making your opponent take 2 hull points off when they roll immobilised results from penetrating hits?

No, because I don't think that was the intention. What I think the DT FAQ was supposed to show was that you lose a Hull point whenever you take damage, whether or not a hit occured.

That's just a personal opinion though. I have no idea whether they actually intended for Immobile vehicle to take a HP just for being deployed... I would love to say no, because that's clearly absurd... but 4th edition drop pods granting victory points suggest that GW have a different opinion as to just what constitutes 'absurd'...

Until they issue a ruling one way or the other, I'll only use pods against people I know well, and I'll allow opponents using them to play it however they see fit, because that saves arguments at the table.

But again, in most cases, the vehicles that fail DT tests are ones that have motive power. The HP loss from the failed DT is to represent something that immobilizes the vehicle, like throwing a track or something. But with a drop pad, it is *already* immobile, no damage occurred to make it immobile, that is its natural state, and the way it was designed, which is the reason it can't be repaired.

For a drop pod, a fail DT is something like a rock (or something similar) in the landing zone that actually damages the pod.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
King - it isnt ludicrous, it is just reading the actual text exactly

INCLUDED is a strong phrase - it specifically states that an Immobilised result INCLUDES as in HAS WITH IT, IS ACCOMPANIED BY IN ALL CASES, the loss of HP

Youc annot argue against that phrase, as that is literal English comprehension.

This means that, if you take an immobilised result you SHOULD take HP loss as well - that is what "Includes" means

The non- -1HP side doesnt have a RAW argumetn against this - just one based on emotion

Puma - actually its the basis of inductive logic (1, ...,, K, K+1) so not a fallacy, just not absolute proof

-1 HP should be included....for failing a DT test.

just one based on emotion

This seems like it's trying to bait a heated argument .

nosferatu1001 wrote:

INCLUDED is a strong phrase - it specifically states that an Immobilised result INCLUDES as in HAS WITH IT, IS ACCOMPANIED BY IN ALL CASES, the loss of HP

Youc annot argue against that phrase, as that is literal English comprehension.

No it doesn't it says that a failed Dt test includes the loss of a HP with the immobilised result. Not that they are intrinsically tied together.

The non- -1HP side doesnt have a RAW argumetn against this - just one based on emotion

Nope just different interpretation of the words on the page. You've RAI as RAW. The problem when you try and use "precedent" to expand a question beyond what it says then you have no longer got RAW. Certain faq questions add more to the base rules beyond their specific question but not this.

I read the faq to read, "the unit sufferes an Immobilised result including losing 1 hull point" as in, in addition to losing 1 hull point the vehicle is Immobilised.

My viewpoint.

 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.

That's because their FAQ sucks
It should have said that it's immobilized AND loses a hullpoint instead of the word "including".

My rulebook clearly states:
Glancing hit: 1 effect
> Hullpoint loss.

Penetrating hit: 2 effects
> Hullpoint loss.
> Roll on the Vehicle Damage Table.

It might be me, but with GW's record of typo's and rule-paradoxes I lost faith in the FAQ's capability to fix rule-errors.
Many times, they create more problems than they solve.

Do FW rules count in this? They added a new vehicle type, the immobile vehicle in their 6th edition update - http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf

There's a direct relation to this, the Lucius droppod.

New Vehicle Type: Immobile Vehicle. An Immobile Vehicle cannot move under any circumstances after deployment. Any special rules which force it to move will instead cause the vehicle to take a single Glancing hit. If an Immobile Vehicle sustains a Vehicle Immobilised damage result then it loses an additional Hull Point instead.

So the standard droppod suffers a -1hp when deployed being knocked down to two HP and this one doesn't? Their previous update had the exact same rule word-for-word for the immobile special rule here - http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA2update28AUG.pdf but looks to have been replaced with the Immobile Vehicle rule.

Mantel wrote:
Do FW rules count in this?

Unfortunately no. There are certainly items in FW books where it's obvious they were trying to clear up rule issues in the main game. However, those don't apply for this discussion in YMDC.

Yes unfortunately FW rules stray somewhere between heresy, magic and experimental.

clively wrote:

Mantel wrote:
Do FW rules count in this?

Unfortunately no. There are certainly items in FW books where it's obvious they were trying to clear up rule issues in the main game. However, those don't apply for this discussion in YMDC.

Woh! Nothing that leads people to accept a hp is lost is allowed here. Get that out of here.

Every route that ends with a vehicle becoming immobilized also has that vehicle losing a hp. If you don't wanna follow the obvious supports of why this happens that are listed in the faq, codex, and/or rulebook, then just take out a pen scribble a few new rules in the book and play it that way. As long as your opponents agree to that then happy day.

Or just dont take drop pods until is concrete which way to go. If something is on the line like this I usually lean towards the negative one as not to take advantage of poorly worded situations.

The problem exists with the phrasing of the immbile rule under drop pods, the change to 6th edition with haul points and the people that play this game. Just find players that aren't WAAC TFG s and play with them till immobile is FAQed. You could always take a dump in their model case too when they aren't looking, I don't believe there are any rules against that.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Literal English comprehension requires the inclusion of the qualifier for the statement however. "“A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”."

If the text read "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table and loses one Hull Point” then that would mean a failed DT test causes 2 things, immobilized result AND loss of a HP. The way it is actually written means failing a DT test causes 1 thing, immobilized result, that result includes losing a HP.

However, all the argument about this is immaterial, it is simply another example of an immobilized vehicle. We aren't saying a Drop Pod always gets immobilized by a failed DT test or a shooting attack or a melee attack or any kind of hit. What we are saying is it is "treated" like it has an immobilized result.

Can anyone show us a vehicle that has an immobilized result, but has not lost a HP? If so, then treat the drop pod like that and don't take the HP hit. That would satisfy me.

FenixZero wrote:
But again, in most cases, the vehicles that fail DT tests are ones that have motive power. The HP loss from the failed DT is to represent something that immobilizes the vehicle, like throwing a track or something. But with a drop pad, it is *already* immobile, no damage occurred to make it immobile, that is its natural state, and the way it was designed, which is the reason it can't be repaired.

And that's been the case for as long as drop pods have been in the game... and yet GW still awarded victory points for 'damaging' the pod just for it being deployed onto the table.

I'd like to see what the Dark Angels codex has to say on this in the next few days although chances are it's a copy/paste job for a standard drop pod entry and we'll have to wait for an FAQ for a proper answer. I've looked through a few codex now and outside of FW units the immobile vehicle that is the drop pod is fairly unique.

Mantel wrote:
I'd like to see what the Dark Angels codex has to say on this in the next few days although chances are it's a copy/paste job for a standard drop pod entry and we'll have to wait for an FAQ for a proper answer. I've looked through a few codex now and outside of FW units the immobile vehicle that is the drop pod is fairly unique.

it is the exact same Immobilerule as the current SM codex. I saw the book last nite

Tye_Informer wrote:

Can anyone show us a vehicle that has an immobilized result, but has not lost a HP? If so, then treat the drop pod like that and don't take the HP hit. That would satisfy me.

There is no other unit in the standard game of 40k that begins by being immobilized. The drop pod is unique in that regard and that alone is probably why the rule language is jacked.

Looking a bit further into FW, there are certainly artillery and turret emplacements which have the "Immobile" rule. There is also the dreadclaw; but it's rules are a bit confusing. They start off by saying when the dreadclaw arrives from reserves, it is deployed using the Drop Pod rules. But then it talks about coming in like an aircraft then moving 36" on the turn *after* it's arrival; so obviously it isn't deployed using the actual drop pod rules but some variation of them. With the specific problem that if it deploys using the Drop Pod rules then it should be immobilized upon first coming in...

Either way none of that matters as it's FW.

I still believe the wording on the Drop Pod rules are such that HP isn't lost on arrival. I also believe that a rule about a Dangerous Terrain test has no bearing on an action that does not involve dangerous terrain. However, I do acknowledge Insaniak's position that prior versions allowed VP to be scored off of a drop pod simply because they were on the table which does lend some credence to the possibility that GW intended for the pods to lose a HP upon arrival.

As there is enough wiggle on both sides, just discuss it before hand or roll for it when it comes up.

When a rule is muddy, I usually endeavor to take the least advantageous route for myself. That being said, I don't agree with the HP loss not only because I don't think that is RAW or RAI, but because I am not going to try to explain to my opponent why his drop pod just suffered a hull point loss because of an ambiguous FAQ interpretation that has nothing to do with drop pods.

alex567 wrote:
I read the faq to read, "the unit sufferes an Immobilised result including losing 1 hull point" as in, in addition to losing 1 hull point the vehicle is Immobilised.

My viewpoint.

The rest of us understand the difference between "in addition" and "including".