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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Mantel - meaning that the DT-immobilsed result is a special result, separate to the normal immobilised result

Why can it be discarded? Because it does not act as a qualifier to the following sentence fragment, unless you are correct and it has created a special, unique immobilised result.

SO which is it? There is a special, unique immobilised result, or there is just the one?

It cannot be discarded. By removing the portion about failing a DT test you are changing the CONTEXT of the statement and therefore assuming it applies to everything, rather than the context in which it is stated.
"When a vehicle fails a DT test, it suffers an immobilised result as detailed on the vehicle damage chart including the loss of a hull point" is not the same as "A vehicle that suffers an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point". You cannot separate sentence in order to create a new context and claim that is RAW, as it's not written that way.

NOBODY is asserting there is some special, unique immobilised result.

There is immobilised, as outlined in the BRB. This RESULT does not include the loss of a HP. How you reach that result, in the case of a Pen or a failed DT test, includes the loss of a hull point.

But then again, this entire thread is now going in circles with both sides of the fence stating, essentially, "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it or prove me wrong".

So immobile states

Treat vehicle same as any other vehicles suffered immobilised result.

I have a land raider which is immobilised (probably on my own aegis done that before!!), now it is down to 1 hull point. Do I treat the drop pod as the same as the land raider? cannot move pivot etc, oh its lost 3 hull points, drop pod is a wreck now ?.

Or just treat it as not being able to move pivot etc just like the immobilsed result tells us.

This is my point of view, will leave this thread at that, thanks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mantel - meaning that the DT-immobilsed result is a special result, separate to the normal immobilised result

Why can it be discarded? Because it does not act as a qualifier to the following sentence fragment, unless you are correct and it has created a special, unique immobilised result.

SO which is it? There is a special, unique immobilised result, or there is just the one?

I didn't really want to discard the start of the sentence, it really changes the context of the whole statement if you start dropping fragments of it but you must be right, it has created a new result. Thanks for clearing that one up, finally an answer is found!

And if your looking for this unique DT-immobilised result, you've just found it! Thanks for that.

MarkyMark wrote:
So immobile states

Treat vehicle same as any other vehicles suffered immobilised result.

I have a land raider which is immobilised (probably on my own aegis done that before!!), now it is down to 1 hull point. Do I treat the drop pod as the same as the land raider? cannot move pivot etc, oh its lost 3 hull points, drop pod is a wreck now ?.

Or just treat it as not being able to move pivot etc just like the immobilsed result tells us.

This is my point of view, will leave this thread at that, thanks.

No it lost 1hp when it failed that DT test. Why 3? Immobile only states that it is treated in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered that result. Any route that is taken to get a vehicle to be immobilized involves losing a hp. So to be the same in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilized result you would only need to lose one hp. Vehicles only ever losing 2 HP from that result if they previously suffered that result. IE if your drop pod comes in and fails a DT it is wrecked! The passengers can still disembark.

You guys are still putting the horse before the cart. This is a special rule, so the general way a vehicle is immobilised requires the loss of a hull point, in this specific case you don't apply other damage because you are not told to.

You don't say "it doesn't say it can't loose a HP" just because a general principle calls for it in most cases because of other factors such as a pen or a failed DT result. Wounds usually require a "to wound" roll but sometimes you just suffer a wound. This is a case where a vehicle is just immobilised.

Kangodo - again, I answered the general case. Not your specific case - which is irrelevant because I answered the general case

Your proof isnt actually proof. It iis just a set of assertions without any backing, that happens to ignore grammatical construction in a sentence.

For the rest? You are still all ignoring "including", and pretending it means something else.

GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kangodo - again, I answered the general case. Not your specific case - which is irrelevant because I answered the general case

Your proof isnt actually proof. It iis just a set of assertions without any backing, that happens to ignore grammatical construction in a sentence.

For the rest? You are still all ignoring "including", and pretending it means something else.

GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

If you answered the general case, than this example shouldn't be that hard.
How many freaking Hull Points does my Land Raider lose after suffering an Immobilized result from a penetrating hit?
You don't even need more than a few symbols.
Hell, it'd even be enough to post a number and click "submit".

It's not irrelevant because you will either contradict yourself or even worse, make a statement that nobody will agree with.
You're cornered, now give it up

nosferatu1001 wrote:

GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

Citation needed! The faq says no such thing. It does not make a blanket statement for all immobilisation results.
That feeds right into the logical trap of two hp being lost to a pen that causes immobilisation. The rules on vehicle damage call for additional damage to the inflicting of a HP loss, so the additional damage is then rolled for. The two are related by just that.

Indeed, if that were true a vehicle that takes a Pen and gets Immobilized would lose 2 Hull points total. Thats not right.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, if that were true a vehicle that takes a Pen and gets Immobilized would lose 2 Hull points total. Thats not right.

Stop asserting that as if it hasn't been addressed. It has. You're incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, if that were true a vehicle that takes a Pen and gets Immobilized would lose 2 Hull points total. Thats not right.

Stop asserting that as if it hasn't been addressed. It has.

Not very well.

rigeld2 wrote:
Stop asserting that as if it hasn't been addressed. It has. You're incorrect.

That's because it hasn't.
The BRB clearly states that a penetrate causes:
1) A Hull Point loss.
2) A roll on the VD-table.

According to you, the roll on the VD-table can also cause a HP-loss if it's 5 (Immobilized).
Therefore it would mean that an Immobilize after a Penetrating hit would cause 2 Hull Points to be removed, which is just ridiculous.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, if that were true a vehicle that takes a Pen and gets Immobilized would lose 2 Hull points total. Thats not right.

Stop asserting that as if it hasn't been addressed. It has. You're incorrect.

Most of the reasons I've found in thread that address the double hit scenario are pretty flimsy and require a rewrite of how damage is applied to vehicles when resolving penetrating hits. Can you provide a link or quote to one that addresses this to your satisfaction?

I'm finding it pretty hard to find one that works within the rules of penetrating hits. I've found ones that say that HP loss is included in the damage results table but the book clearly states that HP loss is separate from the damage result table and the damage result table is an additional modifier applied after the HP loss has been resolved. I've found some others that go A+B=C so B+E=C or something along that lines and didn't explain the point they where trying to make at all and just ignored the steps that must be taken after a penetrating hit.

I'm going with nosferatu1001's answer to this question, "meaning that the DT-immobilised result is a special result, separate to the normal immobilised result" because it's just that, a special rule that allows immobilise to include a HP loss in a special scenario.

Kangodo wrote:
But let me ask you one question:
I have a Land Raider.
Someone fires a Lascannon (STR9 - AP2).
He hits. He penetrates.
He rolls a 4, adds 1 and my Land Raider is Immobilized!

How many Hull Points does my Land Raider lose?

Your Land Raider has suffered an Immobilized result, including losting a HP. If it started with 4, it now has 3. That is 1 HP loss.

Tye_Informer wrote:
Your Land Raider has suffered an Immobilized result, including losting a HP. If it started with 4, it now has 3. That is 1 HP loss.

I know
But their argument was that an Immobilized result gives a Hull Point loss.
Combined with the Hull Point loss from the Penetrating hit, that would make the total 2 HP loss.
So that's why I asked them, hoping that they would see the error in it.

Kangodo wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:
Your Land Raider has suffered an Immobilized result, including losting a HP. If it started with 4, it now has 3. That is 1 HP loss.

I know
But their argument was that an Immobilized result gives a Hull Point loss.
Combined with the Hull Point loss from the Penetrating hit, that would make the total 2 HP loss.
So that's why I asked them, hoping that they would see the error in it.

So you agree that an immobilized result, like your Land Raider received in the example, included losing 1 HP. That's the point that we are all making.

It lost 1 hull point from the penetrating hit, not from rolling immobilised.

Immobilised does not mean you lose a hull point.

If it did, then that Land Raider would have lost 2.

Tye_Informer wrote:
So you agree that an immobilized result, like your Land Raider received in the example, included losing 1 HP. That's the point that we are all making.

No no no no!
The Vehicle Damage-table does not include losing Hull Points.
The only thing that can cause a vehicle to lose a Hull Point in (normal) shooting is a glancing or penetrating hit.
After this penetrating hit you will roll on the Vehicle Damage table to find what the additional "damage" is, but none of those 5 effects can ever cause another loss of Hull Point.

So in short: An Immobilized result does not give a Hull Point loss!

 liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

Citation needed! The faq says no such thing. It does not make a blanket statement for all immobilisation results.
That feeds right into the logical trap of two hp being lost to a pen that causes immobilisation. The rules on vehicle damage call for additional damage to the inflicting of a HP loss, so the additional damage is then rolled for. The two are related by just that.

So, again, you are claiming there are TWO immobilised results that are possible? Please provide proof of this, for the SIXTH time of asking, or retract it. You are claiming that there are two different immobilised results, so actually prove it, or concede you cannot do so.

Once you have done that, you are back to only a single immobilised result, which includes a HP loss

Kangodo - again, this has been answered. You are making an irrelevant argument, as you are claiming that a result you dont agree with makes the argument incorrect. Poor logical fallacy, yet again, which along with your trolling accusations makes someone even less likely to want to respond to you, Try reading the tenets, theyre really useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:


So in short: An Immobilized result does not give a Hull Point loss!

Directly contradicted by a very simple and straightforward sentence you have decided to alter the wording of to fit your idea of how the rules should read

Impressive

nosferatu1001 wrote:


GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

If this is true, then you must lose 2 on rolling an immobilised result after a pen. There is no way out of that if the above statement is true.

You roll a penetrating hit. Per the rulebook page 74:

After deducting any Hull Points. . .

So we just deducted 1 for the penetrating hit. Now, we find out what happens.

. . .roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armor.

So, now we roll a D6. And since GW has "redefined that an immoibilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP", then we must lose another if we roll 5.

I have not seen anything in this thread that refutes that with any sort of validity. I've seen stammering conclusions that somehow it is included in the roll, when it doesn't say that anywhere. And if it is included in the roll, it is not longer included in the immobilise result. So you may want to stop repeating that this claim has been refuted, because it has not.

Also, I think it is interesting that people are taking a specific FAQ ruling and making blanket statements upon all of the rules. Folks did that once before with splitting combat squads in reserves and made a big mess that could've been easily avoided.

Let's not ignore the Law of Economy (or Occam's Razor) - don't multiply beyond necessity. If you have to make 2 or 3 logical leaps to make an immobilised result incur the loss of HP in every situation, you're doing too much work. It is much easier, and therefore probably correct that it does not, and it only means that at HP is lost on a DT test.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

Citation needed! The faq says no such thing. It does not make a blanket statement for all immobilisation results.
That feeds right into the logical trap of two hp being lost to a pen that causes immobilisation. The rules on vehicle damage call for additional damage to the inflicting of a HP loss, so the additional damage is then rolled for. The two are related by just that.

So, again, you are claiming there are TWO immobilised results that are possible? Please provide proof of this, for the SIXTH time of asking, or retract it. You are claiming that there are two different immobilised results, so actually prove it, or concede you cannot do so.

Once you have done that, you are back to only a single immobilised result, which includes a HP loss

I don't think he's claiming there are two possible immobilised results.

Could you please explain again why we are supposed to ignore the HP loss from the Penetrating hit that caused the roll on the damage chart?

 puma713 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


GW have redefined that an immobilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP

If this is true, then you must lose 2 on rolling an immobilised result after a pen. There is no way out of that if the above statement is true.

You roll a penetrating hit. Per the rulebook page 74:

After deducting any Hull Points. . .

So we just deducted 1 for the penetrating hit. Now, we find out what happens.

. . .roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armor.

So, now we roll a D6. And since GW has "redefined that an immoibilised result INCLUDES the loss of a HP", then we must lose another if we roll 5.

I have not seen anything in this thread that refutes that with any sort of validity. I've seen stammering conclusions that somehow it is included in the roll, when it doesn't say that anywhere. And if it is included in the roll, it is not longer included in the immobilise result. So you may want to stop repeating that this claim has been refuted, because it has not.

Also, I think it is interesting that people are taking a specific FAQ ruling and making blanket statements upon all of the rules. Folks did that once before with splitting combat squads in reserves and made a big mess that could've been easily avoided.

Let's not ignore the Law of Economy (or Occam's Razor) - don't multiply beyond necessity. If you have to make 2 or 3 logical leaps to make an immobilised result incur the loss of HP in every situation, you're doing too much work. It is much easier, and therefore probably correct that it does not, and it only means that at HP is lost on a DT test.

I read the first sentence of you posted and . Your argument is still based on the 2 hp lost. A standard you put in place to make your argument sound better. No one has stated that it loses a second hull point. Merely that any route that gets to the vehicle to the point of being immobilized involves that vehicle losing a hp in one way, shape, or form. I am having trouble understanding how this is so hard to comprehend and why you are think that is a 2nd hp lost?

 Tomb King wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


*sniped for brevity*

I read the first sentence of you posted and . Your argument is still based on the 2 hp lost. A standard you put in place to make your argument sound better.

Um no. I didn't "put it in place". It is the unfortunate consequence of a hull point loss being instrinsically tied to an immobilised result. I suppose you haven't been reading the past few pages.

 Tomb King wrote:
No one has stated that it loses a second hull point.

Now you have me . The reason that no one has stated that it loses a second hull point is because it would damage their argument. The argument is that an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point at all times also means that if you roll an immobilised result after a penetrating hit, that you must also lose a second hull point. One from the penetrating shot, and one from the immobilise result, which now, according to nos has been "redefined to include a hull point loss." See how you lose two now?

 Tomb King wrote:
Merely that any route that gets to the vehicle to the point of being immobilized involves that vehicle losing a hp in one way, shape, or form.

What you just said above is nowhere in the rules. You're assuming that however you get to immobilised, you lose a HP. If we need to go back 7 pages we can, but the only ways to lose a hull point are Glancing Hits, Penetrating Hits and failing a DT test. Where in the Immobile rule does it say that you just did any of those three thinqs? It says you are to be treated as if you suffered an immobilised result. That means, read the immobilise result and find out how your unit is reacting. You suffer a hull point loss at the step before suffering an immobilise result - not because you suffered an immobilised result.

If it means that simply because you suffered an immobilised result, it also means that you lose a hull point, then you must, by definition, lose two when you roll a 5 on the damage chart.

 Tomb King wrote:
I am having trouble understanding

I know.

Undertow - I never said that we should ignore it. He MUST be saying there are two types of immobilisation result, because - according to the FAQ - one definitely INCLUDES HP loss. If you are stating it does not, then either the FAQ is lying - which it cannot do - or there are, indeed, 2. Or, there is one.

Dodging around this point is not helping the argument conclude - either you have defined a new immobilisation result, without any rules backing, or you have to accept GW changed the rules to state that immobilisation INCLUDES HP loss. The latter is easy, because thats what they actually did do.

Puma - which I've already said once before in this thread - that with that change to the rules, you now take 2HP. Which is almost certainly stupid, however this wouldnt be the first time GW change rules without thinking it through.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Puma - which I've already said once before in this thread - that with that change to the rules, you now take 2HP. Which is almost certainly stupid, however this wouldnt be the first time GW change rules without thinking it through.

So, I'm just curious now: are you going to make your opponents lose 2 when you pen them and roll a 5?

GW is using include how in addition is used.

they are saying include this result, not that a hull point is part of the immobilised result!

 puma713 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


*sniped for brevity*

I read the first sentence of you posted and . Your argument is still based on the 2 hp lost. A standard you put in place to make your argument sound better.

Um no. I didn't "put it in place". It is the unfortunate consequence of a hull point loss being instrinsically tied to an immobilised result. I suppose you haven't been reading the past few pages.

 Tomb King wrote:
No one has stated that it loses a second hull point.

Now you have me . The reason that no one has stated that it loses a second hull point is because it would damage their argument. The argument is that an immobilised result includes the loss of a hull point at all times also means that if you roll an immobilised result after a penetrating hit, that you must also lose a second hull point. One from the penetrating shot, and one from the immobilise result, which now, according to nos has been "redefined to include a hull point loss." See how you lose two now?

 Tomb King wrote:
Merely that any route that gets to the vehicle to the point of being immobilized involves that vehicle losing a hp in one way, shape, or form.

What you just said above is nowhere in the rules. You're assuming that however you get to immobilised, you lose a HP. If we need to go back 7 pages we can, but the only ways to lose a hull point are Glancing Hits, Penetrating Hits and failing a DT test. Where in the Immobile rule does it say that you just did any of those three thinqs? It says you are to be treated as if you suffered an immobilised result. That means, read the immobilise result and find out how your unit is reacting. You suffer a hull point loss at the step before suffering an immobilise result - not because you suffered an immobilised result.

If it means that simply because you suffered an immobilised result, it also means that you lose a hull point, then you must, by definition, lose two when you roll a 5 on the damage chart.

 Tomb King wrote:
I am having trouble understanding

I know.

Alright I guess I am assuming when 100% of the time something happens that it actually happens. What a silly thing to do.

 Tomb King wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


*snip*

Alright I guess I am assuming when 100% of the time something happens that it actually happens. What a silly thing to do.

Please stop mass-quoting text, especially if it is to make a snarky remark that doesn't actually move the debate in one way or another.

Mantel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, if that were true a vehicle that takes a Pen and gets Immobilized would lose 2 Hull points total. Thats not right.

Stop asserting that as if it hasn't been addressed. It has. You're incorrect.

Most of the reasons I've found in thread that address the double hit scenario are pretty flimsy and require a rewrite of how damage is applied to vehicles when resolving penetrating hits. Can you provide a link or quote to one that addresses this to your satisfaction?

I'm finding it pretty hard to find one that works within the rules of penetrating hits. I've found ones that say that HP loss is included in the damage results table but the book clearly states that HP loss is separate from the damage result table and the damage result table is an additional modifier applied after the HP loss has been resolved. I've found some others that go A+B=C so B+E=C or something along that lines and didn't explain the point they where trying to make at all and just ignored the steps that must be taken after a penetrating hit.

I'm going with nosferatu1001's answer to this question, "meaning that the DT-immobilised result is a special result, separate to the normal immobilised result" because it's just that, a special rule that allows immobilise to include a HP loss in a special scenario.

You don't suffer a second HP loss because the initial Penetrating hull point is part of the result - ie included.
You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

You must still roll even if the Hull Point damage wrecks the vehicle (page 74) showing that each result includes hull point loss.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Undertow - I never said that we should ignore it. He MUST be saying there are two types of immobilisation result, because - according to the FAQ - one definitely INCLUDES HP loss. If you are stating it does not, then either the FAQ is lying - which it cannot do - or there are, indeed, 2. Or, there is one.

Dodging around this point is not helping the argument conclude - either you have defined a new immobilisation result, without any rules backing, or you have to accept GW changed the rules to state that immobilisation INCLUDES HP loss. The latter is easy, because thats what they actually did do.

Yes, GW changed a rule (by adding the loss of a hull point to the failure of a DT test).

Of course the FAQ is not lying. It states you include the loss of a hull point, along with the immobilisation results for the failing of a DT test. To continue to ignore the portion of the sentence that very clearly states that it is a result of FAILING A DT TEST is to ignore a portion of the rules. Ignoring a portion of the rules means you're not using the rules as written, which you are more than welcome to do, however, as written it is included in the results of failing a dt test.