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:

You don't suffer a second HP loss because the initial Penetrating hull point is part of the result - ie included.

Where is this explained, between the FAQ and the rulebook? All I see is a FAQ addressing Dangerous Terrain tests and information about penetrating hit in the rulebook. Nowhere does it mention the above statement. So a page and paragraph would be great.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Both of these are true. But your conclusion is a fallacy of faulty generalization:

X is true for A.
X is true for B.
Therefore X must be true for C.

This is incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:
You must still roll even if the Hull Point damage wrecks the vehicle (page 74) showing that each result includes hull point loss.

This is blatantly incorrect. No results include a hull point loss. If you remove the penetrating hit out of the rules completely (which is what the Immobile rule does), how do the damage charts make you lose a hull point? Where is that stated?

Edit:

If the Immobile rule said that you became immobile as if you had failed a dangerous terrain test, I would agree with you all day.

 undertow wrote:
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?

You're not. What I believe GW were trying to do with the DT re-word was establish that damage = hull point loss. They did so in a way that overlooked the way the process actually works, which is perfectly in keeping with how the current batch of FAQs was written... They were clearly done by someone who had read the 6th edition rules a couple of times and made it all up from there based on what they thought made sense... and in several instances, they got it horribly wrong.

As the rules currently stand, there is certainly an argument for an immobilised result causing 2 HPs to drop, thanks to the re-word of the difficult terrain rules... but I seriously doubt anyone is actually going to play that way. The way I'll be playing it for now at least is that any time the vehicle takes damage, whether a glancing or penetrating hit occurred or not, the vehicle will lose a hull point because I think that makes the most sense in light of the FAQ. I would, however, make an exception to this for Immobile vehicles until GW decide to FAQ it one way or the other, because as many have pointed out, the vehicle losing a hull point just for landing as intended is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than the 4th edition ruling... but I would hope that GW learnt something from the general reception that ruling got from Marine players... A guy can dream, after all.

Not sure if already mentioned (tried to read all the replies, but since a lot of the arguments have been repeated several times I lost track of what I already had read and what not), but what about the following:

The "Immobile" special rule of a Droppod says: "..., and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an immobilised damage result".

Where does it say that this result has to be settled the turn it lands. No where does it say the immobilsed damage result is caused by landing. This is a vehicle that has the property of ALWAYS acting as if it has suffered an immobilised damage result. To me the most likely scenario would be:

The immobilised damage result is a qualifier to show what the "Immobile" special rule entails in the game. Since there is no cause that triggers the immobilised damage result you do not need to resolve any additional actions. It simply follows the continueing effects of being immobilised.

If for some reason you do want to subtract a HP, this would then have to be done before the game starts (which I am unsure if even possible). And then the question arrises whether or not this HP deduction is already part of the Drop Pod profile or not.

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You don't suffer a second HP loss because the initial Penetrating hull point is part of the result - ie included.

Where is this explained, between the FAQ and the rulebook? All I see is a FAQ addressing Dangerous Terrain tests and information about penetrating hit in the rulebook. Nowhere does it mention the above statement. So a page and paragraph would be great.

It's a statement based on reading the relevant rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Both of these are true. But your conclusion is a fallacy of faulty generalization:

X is true for A.
X is true for B.
Therefore X must be true for C.

This is incorrect.

So you cannot suffer a pen result without also suffering hull point damage, and vice versa. That's all I was saying. I'm not sure what "C" you're referring to.

rigeld2 wrote:
You must still roll even if the Hull Point damage wrecks the vehicle (page 74) showing that each result includes hull point loss.

This is blatantly incorrect. No results include a hull point loss. If you remove the penetrating hit out of the rules completely (which is what the Immobile rule does), how do the damage charts make you lose a hull point? Where is that stated?

They don't.
But because its they're, they include hull point loss. The DT errata solidifies this by saying that the hull point damage is included in the damage result.

If the Immobile rule said that you became immobile as if you had failed a dangerous terrain test, I would agree with you all day.

And I'd be saying that's a chicken/egg problem.

The DT Immobilize includes a Hull Point loss, correct?
According to you, the DT Immobilize is different from the result when you roll, correct? (I'm saying this because you are adamant that the roll does not include hull point loss)

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Both of these are true. But your conclusion is a fallacy of faulty generalization:

X is true for A.
X is true for B.
Therefore X must be true for C.

This is incorrect.

So you cannot suffer a pen result without also suffering hull point damage, and vice versa. That's all I was saying. I'm not sure what "C" you're referring to.

A = You lose a hull point for suffering a pen.
B = You suffer a pen when you roll on the damage chart and score 'immobilised'.

C = Therefore, if you suffer an 'immobilised', you must have lost a hull point.

This is not true.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You must still roll even if the Hull Point damage wrecks the vehicle (page 74) showing that each result includes hull point loss.

This is blatantly incorrect. No results include a hull point loss. If you remove the penetrating hit out of the rules completely (which is what the Immobile rule does), how do the damage charts make you lose a hull point? Where is that stated?

They don't.

That'll do.

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If the Immobile rule said that you became immobile as if you had failed a dangerous terrain test, I would agree with you all day.

And I'd be saying that's a chicken/egg problem.

The DT Immobilize includes a Hull Point loss, correct?

First of all, there is no DT immobilise. There is a failed DT test. The failed DT test gained the inclusion of a hull point loss. So, in essence, yes, a DT immobilise includes a hull point loss, but not because of the immobilisation, but because of the failed DT test.

rigeld2 wrote:
According to you, the DT Immobilize is different from the result when you roll, correct? (I'm saying this because you are adamant that the roll does not include hull point loss)

No, it is the same result as when you are penned. The difference is I think the FAQ is referencing the DT test giving you the hull point loss, not the damage table. Because, if it was the damage table, I'd be trying to tell my opponents that they lose 2 HPs on an immobilise result, which I don't believe to be the truth.

I have removed several posts that were starting to verge on attacking each other rather than addressing the topic. Please stick to discussing the actual issue at hand, rather than how other posters choose to present their arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
The difference is I think the FAQ is referencing the DT test giving you the hull point loss, not the damage table.

Which would be true if the errata said that you also lose a hull point, rather than that it is included in being immobilised.

I can accept that it's possibly what the writer of the errata was intending... but what he wrote doesn't match that.

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.

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.

Prettymuch the point I made so many pages ago.

That being said, it's easy enough to play without immobilize causing an extra needless hp loss.

 insaniak wrote:
I have removed several posts that were starting to verge on attacking each other rather than addressing the topic. Please stick to discussing the actual issue at hand, rather than how other posters choose to present their arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
The difference is I think the FAQ is referencing the DT test giving you the hull point loss, not the damage table.

Which would be true if the errata said that you also lose a hull point, rather than that it is included in being immobilised.

I can accept that it's possibly what the writer of the errata was intending... but what he wrote doesn't match that.

Seems GW has made a sweeping change that hurts everybody significantly and Drop pods more so?

 puma713 wrote:


A = You lose a hull point for suffering a pen.
B = You suffer a pen when you roll on the damage chart and score 'immobilised'.

C = Therefore, if you suffer an 'immobilised', you must have lost a hull point.

This is not true.

That's not my assertion. You'd know that if you argued against what I said instead of what you want me to say.
A: You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
B: You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

Therefore if you suffer a damage result you must have lost a hull point. I know that's exactly what I said because I just copy/pasted it.

Edited by insaniak. It wasn't a request. Stick to the topic.

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If the Immobile rule said that you became immobile as if you had failed a dangerous terrain test, I would agree with you all day.

And I'd be saying that's a chicken/egg problem.

The DT Immobilize includes a Hull Point loss, correct?

First of all, there is no DT immobilise. There is a failed DT test. The failed DT test gained the inclusion of a hull point loss. So, in essence, yes, a DT immobilise includes a hull point loss, but not because of the immobilisation, but because of the failed DT test.

So you're ignoring the actual wording of the errata? Because the errata says that the immobilize includes the HP loss, not the DT test failure.

rigeld2 wrote:
According to you, the DT Immobilize is different from the result when you roll, correct? (I'm saying this because you are adamant that the roll does not include hull point loss)

No, it is the same result as when you are penned. The difference is I think the FAQ is referencing the DT test giving you the hull point loss, not the damage table. Because, if it was the damage table, I'd be trying to tell my opponents that they lose 2 HPs on an immobilise result, which I don't believe to be the truth.

If I give you $5.00 including your lunch money does the $5.00 include your lunch money?

rigeld2 wrote:


A: You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
B: You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

Therefore if you suffer a damage result you must have lost a hull point. I know that's exactly what I said because I just copy/pasted it.

A and B are both correct. When you are immobilised from the drop pod Immobile rule you are not rolling on the table however. So neither A or B affect that.

rigeld2 wrote:

If I give you $5.00 including your lunch money does the $5.00 include your lunch money?

Yes. But, unlike the FAQ, this is a 2 part question. The FAQ is 3 parts (Failed DT test, immobilized result including a hull point loss)

So let's rephrase. When you leave the house, I will give you $5 including your lunch money. Does the $5 include your lunch money? Yes. If you don't leave the house, am I giving you your lunch money? No.

rigeld2 wrote:

If I give you $5.00 including your lunch money does the $5.00 include your lunch money?

First of all, that is a poor example. My lunch money could be $3.00. So, if you give me $5.00 including my lunch money, that could mean you just gave me $8.00. You'd have to qualify that the $5.00 does, in fact, include the $3.00 that is supposed to be for lunch. You're not saying that you gave me $5.00 (which includes the money for lunch), you simply said that you gave me $5.00, including any money that I would use for lunch, which could be anything.

Second of all, we're now going back 5 pages or so, back to putting on pants or not. And it looks like we're going to keep going back and forth saying the same thing, so, since neither of us are prepared to give ground and it seems that we each don't understand how the other can't see it our way, I think it's time that we agree to disagree.

Still curious, though nosferatu: since you've said now that you agree with the 2-hull point loss, is that HYWPI?

Rorschach9 wrote:
The FAQ is 3 parts (Failed DT test, immobilized result including a hull point loss)

That's two things, not three... because the third thing is included in the second.

If you don't leave the house, am I giving you your lunch money? No.

...Because you're not handing over any money.

So all you've established there is that a vehicle that doesn't take damage doesn't lose a hull point...

 insaniak wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
The FAQ is 3 parts (Failed DT test, immobilized result including a hull point loss)

That's two things, not three... because the third thing is included in the second.

We will all just have to agree to disagree then. It is 3 parts in my reading (and many others apparently) as if you fail the DT test you are immobilized, including a hull point loss. That does NOT say "Immmobilized result includes a hull point loss". Those are entirely different statements and leaving out a portion of the sentence means you are changing the rule being provided.

If you don't leave the house, am I giving you your lunch money? No.

...Because you're not handing over any money.

So all you've established there is that a vehicle that doesn't take damage doesn't lose a hull point...

I have also shown that they are two entirely different statements, simply by removing a portion of a sentence.

The only statements within the Rules and FAQ's that require the loss of a hull point are Glancing, Penetrating and failed DT test. Pen is followed by a roll on the damage table. Failed DT test is followed by a pre-determined result on the damage table. "including the loss of a hull point" changes the original DT test rule that ONLY had you suffer immobilised.

But .. agree to disagree I guess. I don't really see it as a game changer in either case.

Let me ask a few questions to explain it and get to the bottom of the issue:
1) Do you agree that a Penetrating hit has two separate effects: a) lose a hull point and b) roll on the VD-table.
2) Do you think that "Immobilized" on the VD-table causes a loss of HP.
3) Do you think that penetrating a vehicle and rolling "Immobilized" results into a total HP-loss of 2?

 insaniak wrote:
Which would be true if the errata said that you also lose a hull point, rather than that it is included in being immobilised.

But again: It does not say it's included in being immobilized.
It says, copied from the website: “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.

That means it can refer to failing the Dangerous Terrain test ánd the result from the Vehicle Damage table.
Seeing as they did not FAQ the VD-table, including it to the VD-result would break the rules.
Therefore the conclusion is that it is included in failing the DT-test, which doesn't break any rule.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

No, the Hull Point loss is not part of the result.
It's even BOLDED in my Rulebook: "After deducing any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour."
As you can see, a penetrating shot has two effects: HP-loss and a Vehicle Damage-result. None has anything to do with the other.

You cannot be penetrated without rolling on the table, nor can you roll on the table without Penetrating.
But a Drop Pod doesn't ask you to roll on the table, it says it's Immobilized and refers to the VD-table to explain what Immobilized means.

Rorschach9 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:


A: You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
B: You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

Therefore if you suffer a damage result you must have lost a hull point. I know that's exactly what I said because I just copy/pasted it.

A and B are both correct. When you are immobilised from the drop pod Immobile rule you are not rolling on the table however. So neither A or B affect that.

So despite the errata specifically stating that it is the result from the Vehicle Damage Table, you're treating the DT damage differently than the Pen damage?

rigeld2 wrote:

If I give you $5.00 including your lunch money does the $5.00 include your lunch money?

Yes. But, unlike the FAQ, this is a 2 part question. The FAQ is 3 parts (Failed DT test, immobilized result including a hull point loss)

So let's rephrase. When you leave the house, I will give you $5 including your lunch money. Does the $5 include your lunch money? Yes. If you don't leave the house, am I giving you your lunch money? No.

Correct, if you take no damage you don't lose a Hull Point.
And that's still only 2 parts because one includes another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
No, the Hull Point loss is not part of the result.
It's even BOLDED in my Rulebook: "After deducing any Hull Points, roll a D6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour."
As you can see, a penetrating shot has two effects: HP-loss and a Vehicle Damage-result. None has anything to do with the other.

If they have nothing to do with one another, then it must be possible to suffer a Penetrating hull point without rolling on the table. Please explain how.

rigeld2 wrote:
So despite the errata specifically stating that it is the result from the Vehicle Damage Table, you're treating the DT damage differently than the Pen damage?

Do you want me to quote the errata again?
How many times do I have to mention that the “including blabla” can refer to the failing of the DT-test?
Would it help if I got people with Majors in English to support that?

I will admit that it’s not the most beautiful line in the language, but it can refer to the first part.

If they have nothing to do with one another, then it must be possible to suffer a Penetrating hull point without rolling on the table. Please explain how.

No, now you are discussing things I have never said.

A Penetrating hit doesn’t do anything on its own, it’s just the name of a rule.
It’s a rule that says:
1) Subtract one Hull Point.
2) Roll a D6, add modifiers and see what it does on the Vehicle Damage-table
That are two separate effects that have nothing to do with eachother, but both are what you need to do if you get a Penetrating hit (A Penetrating hit is when STR+D6>AV)

So the Hull Point loss that you get from a hit, comes from part 1 of the Penetrating hit-ruling and not from part 2.
That means a Drop Pod can’t lose a Hull Point since the Vehicle Damage-table doesn’t make you lose Hull Points.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So despite the errata specifically stating that it is the result from the Vehicle Damage Table, you're treating the DT damage differently than the Pen damage?

Do you want me to quote the errata again?
How many times do I have to mention that the “including blabla” can refer to the failing of the DT-test?
Would it help if I got people with Majors in English to support that?

I will admit that it’s not the most beautiful line in the language, but it can refer to the first part.

It really can't. If X then Y, including A.
A is part of Y, not X.

If they have nothing to do with one another, then it must be possible to suffer a Penetrating hull point without rolling on the table. Please explain how.

No, now you are discussing things I have never said.

Well, you did say that the hull point and damage result have nothing to do with the other. I even quoted it.

A Penetrating hit doesn’t do anything on its own, it’s just the name of a rule.
It’s a rule that says:
1) Subtract one Hull Point.
2) Roll a D6, add modifiers and see what it does on the Vehicle Damage-table
That are two separate effects that have nothing to do with eachother, but both are what you need to do if you get a Penetrating hit (A Penetrating hit is when STR+D6>AV)

And if they have nothing to do with each other then they're separable. If they're separable they must be able to be suffered separately.
Please explain how.
If they cannot be suffered separately then they're intertwined - one is included with the other.

rigeld2 wrote:
It really can't. If X then Y, including A.
A is part of Y, not X.

If you fail your exam you will get grounded, including a stop to your pocket money.
Does that indicate that you never get pocket money when you are grounded? No, it doesn’t.

Well, you did say that the hull point and damage result have nothing to do with the other. I even quoted it.

And how does that bring you to: “then it must be possible to suffer a Penetrating hull point without rolling on the table.”
I literally said that a Penetrating hit has these two effects!
It’s even written down in the BRB like that: After doing 1), do 2).

And if they have nothing to do with each other then they're separable. If they're separable they must be able to be suffered separately.
Please explain how.
If they cannot be suffered separately then they're intertwined - one is included with the other.

Easy! A glancing hit: That way you can get effect 1, without 2.
Penetrating hit is just a rule that says: “Do both!”

rigeld2 wrote:
It really can't. If X then Y, including A.
A is part of Y, not X.

Conversely ; Y, including A happens IF X. If no X, then what happens? Right.. that's not in the Errata. Only "IF X, then Y including A".

Removing X does not therefore conclude that Y must include A. Y must include A IF X occurs.

Yep. Basic English comprehension AND math.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not my assertion. You'd know that if you argued against what I said instead of what you want me to say.
A: You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.
B: You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

Therefore if you suffer a damage result you must have lost a hull point. I know that's exactly what I said because I just copy/pasted it.

You've got another strawman there. It's saying all sorts of things without looking at the BRB.

Lets take them one at a time.

A: You cannot suffer a Penetrating hull point loss without rolling on the table. If you disagree cite why.

You right! Nice one! Well, kind of. You suffer a Penetration hit, and after deducting any Hull Points you get to roll on the vehicle damage table which results in a damage modifier.

B: You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss. If you disagree cite why.

errr, you really should read the BRB again, it does not state that you must lose a hull point AFTER rolling on the table just that a penetrating hit make you lose a HP and you must make an ADDITIONAL roll on the table. There is no-where in the book that says you must suffer a HP loss before using this table, you have said "You cannot roll on the table without suffering a hull point loss." therefore you must prove your point, please provide some text, page number or otherwise that states that you MUST suffer a HP loss before using the damage table in question. Please, quote a full sentence rather than a fragment.

I'm going to quote something now, fair warning.

"After deducting any Hull Points, roll aD6 for each shot that penetrated the vehicle's armour. Apply any appropriate modifiers" Please show me in this quote OR in the Penetrating hits paragraph that is mentioned in the Resolving Damage section of the BRB that shows a hull point loss is included in the Vehicle Damage table. Please don't just quote half the errata, if you want to quote something then do it in it's full context. If asking you to quote something in full context breaks your argument, well then...

It is fairly clear that it does not change the penetrating hit rule nor does it change the results from the Vehicle Damage table. The penetrating hit rule includes a HP loss and makes and ADDITIONAL roll to MODIFIY that damage with a result from the damage table. The damage table makes a modification to allow an additional penalty NOT to allow an additional HP loss.



Please, someone! Please tell me the reason that a penetrating hit that results in an immobilisation modifier does NOT suffer -2hp because immobilisation includes -1hp. It doesn't make sense! A penetrating hit causes -1hp and then an additional immobilisation result is added to it as a modifier! It does not make sense! The immobilisation result is an additional damage modifier. Please point me to the altar that everyone of you has explained so far, I cannot find it in this thread. If your going to X=Y+C/B then X and Y the FULL sentence in the errata rather than a sentence fragment.

Kangodo wrote:
How many times do I have to mention that the “including blabla” can refer to the failing of the DT-test?

It won't matter how many times you repeat it if people disagree with the basic premise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
If you fail your exam you will get grounded, including a stop to your pocket money.
Does that indicate that you never get pocket money when you are grounded? No, it doesn’t.

No, I'm afraid it does.

The fact that it is listed as something that is included in getting grounded, rather than an additional effect, says that it is a part of being grounded. Everything from 'including' onwards is not new information... it's just a reminder that being grounded includes this particular thing.

Well I see the debate has progressed well since I went and had dinner with friends.

To both rigeld and nos, I do not think there are two immobilisation results. I think there is one as per the rules on the damage chart. You have refused to engage with the idea that there is only one yourselves with the 2 HP on a pen and immobilised result roll.

So in summary there is either a special rule that makes a statement that is referring to the vehicle damage chart only OR Insaniak is right and immobilised is a double hitter.

Nothing in the BRB states that taking a HP off a vehicle is part of the process of a roll on the vehicle damage chart it is in fact that both are part of the process of resolving a pen. The faq seeks to link the loss of a hull point and an immobilised result in the case of DT, and maybe further cases, but that doesn't link them in the way you are stating. It doesn't say that damage equates to the loss of a HP it only mentions immobilised and does not clearly state that it goes beyond this example.

Now go read the DA codex that will be available from the same places you all get your codex and see what the RAI is for drop pods.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well I see the debate has progressed well since I went and had dinner with friends.

To both rigeld and nos, I do not think there are two immobilisation results. I think there is one as per the rules on the damage chart. You have refused to engage with the idea that there is only one yourselves with the 2 HP on a pen and immobilised result roll.

That's a lie. Both of us have addressed that (in different ways).

rigeld2 wrote:
That's a lie. Both of us have addressed that (in different ways).

Yeah, but NOS addressed that by saying you DO suffer two Hull Point-losses.
Which, although I really really disagree with that, makes sure he correctly uses his conclusion.

The BRB says that a penetrating hit has two effects:
1) Hull Point-loss.
2) Roll on the VD-table.

What you said (I have your post right here, so that's it unless I am really misunderstanding it) is that if you roll "Immobilized" on the VD-table, you suffer a HP-loss and should ignore part 1 of a Penetrating hit.
Correct?
Because if that's correct, you have made a conclusion that breaks the Penetrating hit-rule and therefore cannot be true.

 insaniak wrote:
No, I'm afraid it does.

The fact that it is listed as something that is included in getting grounded, rather than an additional effect, says that it is a part of being grounded. Everything from 'including' onwards is not new information... it's just a reminder that being grounded includes this particular thing.

Seeing as enough people, who are just as good in English as others, disagree that it's a part of being grounded means it might not be a good idea to start a sentence with "the fact..."

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's a lie. Both of us have addressed that (in different ways).

Yeah, but NOS addressed that by saying you DO suffer two Hull Point-losses.
Which, although I really really disagree with that, makes sure he correctly uses his conclusion.

The BRB says that a penetrating hit has two effects:
1) Hull Point-loss.
2) Roll on the VD-table.

What you said (I have your post right here, so that's it unless I am really misunderstanding it) is that if you roll "Immobilized" on the VD-table, you suffer a HP-loss and should ignore part 1 of a Penetrating hit.
Correct?
Because if that's correct, you have made a conclusion that breaks the Penetrating hit-rule and therefore cannot be true.

No that's not what I've said. You're either misreading or I've poorly explained it.

If you suffer a penetrating hit and roll a result (which you must) you've suffered a HP loss and a result. Meaning the result includes the HP loss.

 insaniak wrote:
No, I'm afraid it does.

The fact that it is listed as something that is included in getting grounded, rather than an additional effect, says that it is a part of being grounded. Everything from 'including' onwards is not new information... it's just a reminder that being grounded includes this particular thing.

Seeing as enough people, who are just as good in English as others, disagree that it's a part of being grounded means it might not be a good idea to start a sentence with "the fact..."

So you disagree that it is listed as something that is included rather than as an additional effect?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It really can't. If X then Y, including A.
A is part of Y, not X.

Conversely ; Y, including A happens IF X. If no X, then what happens? Right.. that's not in the Errata. Only "IF X, then Y including A".

Removing X does not therefore conclude that Y must include A. Y must include A IF X occurs.

Yep. Basic English comprehension AND math.

So you agree that A is part of Y.
Assuming Y does not change (and the errata tells us it does not) then the following is true:
If X then Y (including A). If D then Y.

Which means if D happens, so does A.

rigeld2 wrote:
No that's not what I've said. You're either misreading or I've poorly explained it.

If you suffer a penetrating hit and roll a result (which you must) you've suffered a HP loss and a result. Meaning the result includes the HP loss.

So because the VD-table result includes a HP-loss, we should ignore the HP-loss that is included in the Penetrating hit?

The result does NOT include a HP-loss. It are two separate things that both happen when a Penetrating hit is suffered.

So you disagree that it is listed as something that is included rather than as an additional effect?

I disagree that it must be included with the "Immobilized"-effect, it can just as easily be included in the failing of the Dangerous Terrain-test.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No that's not what I've said. You're either misreading or I've poorly explained it.

If you suffer a penetrating hit and roll a result (which you must) you've suffered a HP loss and a result. Meaning the result includes the HP loss.

So because the VD-table result includes a HP-loss, we should ignore the HP-loss that is included in the Penetrating hit?

The result does NOT include a HP-loss. It are two separate things that both happen when a Penetrating hit is suffered.

No - the fact that they are inseparable results means that the Pen HP and the damage result are intertwined. The damage result includes the Pen HP. I'm sure I've said this before.

So you disagree that it is listed as something that is included rather than as an additional effect?

I disagree that it must be included with the "Immobilized"-effect, it can just as easily be included in the failing of the Dangerous Terrain-test.

Not according to the English language.

rigeld2 wrote:
No - the fact that they are inseparable results means that the Pen HP and the damage result are intertwined. The damage result includes the Pen HP. I'm sure I've said this before.

I see where you are coming from.
But I am happy to inform you that you are wrong, sir.

The rules for a 'Penetrating hit' CLEARLY state that first you subtract a Hull Point, then you roll on the table (even when it's wrecked).
It says to do A, then do B.
That means A and B are not intertwined, they are not included in each other in any way and that you should resolve them separately.

You are asking me to simply ignore A, which I cannot do since it would mean I break a rule.

Not according to the English language.

But it has nothing to do with language, it's about logic and math.

We have all agreed that the sentence is: "If X then Y, including A."
You'd be absolutely right if it said "If X then Y including A".
But the small addition of that comma indicates that "including A" can (and in my opinion does) belong to X.
Or even, if you wish, that "including A" belongs to "If X then Y", which wouldn't change a thing.
But never can "including A" refer to only Y.

I have to disagree with you. You always roll on the table if a vehicle suffers a penetrating hit.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No - the fact that they are inseparable results means that the Pen HP and the damage result are intertwined. The damage result includes the Pen HP. I'm sure I've said this before.

I see where you are coming from.
But I am happy to inform you that you are wrong, sir.

The rules for a 'Penetrating hit' CLEARLY state that first you subtract a Hull Point, then you roll on the table (even when it's wrecked).
It says to do A, then do B.
That means A and B are not intertwined, they are not included in each other in any way and that you should resolve them separately.

You are asking me to simply ignore A, which I cannot do since it would mean I break a rule.

If they are resolved separately, then why must you roll on the table even after wrecking a vehicle from hull point loss?

Not according to the English language.

But it has nothing to do with language, it's about logic and math.

We have all agreed that the sentence is: "If X then Y, including A."
You'd be absolutely right if it said "If X then Y including A".
But the small addition of that comma indicates that "including A" can (and in my opinion does) belong to X.
Or even, if you wish, that "including A" belongs to "If X then Y", which wouldn't change a thing.
But never can "including A" refer to only Y.

Reading the English language and parsing a sentence has nothing to do with language?
That's... an interesting stance.

rigeld2 wrote:
If they are resolved separately, then why must you roll on the table even after wrecking a vehicle from hull point loss?

Because the book literally says that.
"You must roll on the VD-table even if the vehicle loses enough HP to be wrecked."
Without that line, you wouldn't have to do it.

Your argument is that a roll on the VD-table always includes a loss of HP, but the rules do not say that.
The VD-result is exactly what the table says, so please stop adding things to it that it doesn't say.

You also come up with words like "Penetrating hit Hull Point" which isn't an official term/ruling either.

Reading the English language and parsing a sentence has nothing to do with language?
That's... an interesting stance.

You could also actually address the argument instead of using up bytes on the internet.
And no, that has nothing to do with language since it's about logic.
It's the same in every language, so I hardly see how this has anything to do with English.