vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

**Sithlord** · 05-09-2012, 01:23

Title says it all.

**wyvirn** · 05-09-2012, 01:40

I would say no, as no penetrating or glancing hits were received. Only the immobilized result is applied.

**DoctorTom** · 05-09-2012, 03:33

Agreed.

Didn't this just come up in a thread just a few days ago?

**Saunders** · 08-09-2012, 15:54

FAQ release states that they do lose a hull point.

**wyvirn** · 08-09-2012, 16:02

Good to know, didn't see it at first when I first slimmed the errata section.

**Sons of Lorgar** · 08-09-2012, 16:15

Aaaand... great... no end to the stupidities of vehicle nerfing.
I for one strongly dislike this ruling for so many reasons it could make a wall of text, but I assume most people in here are intelligent enough to figure them out without a wall of explanations.

**Nurgling Chieftain** · 08-09-2012, 19:19

Yeah, I definitely did not see this one coming, either.

**DoctorTom** · 08-09-2012, 22:36

I suppose this means they'll have drop pods taking a hull point of damage when they land and become immobilized too?

**Zeebeest** · 09-09-2012, 10:31

Drop pods are immobilized because they don't have weels or tracks. They just cant move.
They are treated as immobilized.

**DoctorTom** · 09-09-2012, 22:07

Originally Posted by Zeebeest

Drop pods are immobilized because they don't have weels or tracks. They just cant move.
They are treated as immobilized.

You mean like vehicles taking a dangerous terrain test are just treated as immobilized if they get that result from their roll? We've just had a FAQ assign a hull point damage for that one too.

**Alsiaie** · 10-09-2012, 01:30

Originally Posted by Zeebeest

Drop pods are immobilized because they don't have weels or tracks. They just cant move.
They are treated as immobilized.

A drop pod is an immobile vehicle and is treated as immobilized for all intents and purposes. In order to rule it can't move, it needs to be classified as immobilized. The FAQ states a vehicle has to suffer an immobilized due to failing a dangerous test to lose a hull point. However if a drop pod lands on terrain and fails a DT test, the drop pod would lose 2 hull points. The FAQ forces one hullpoint just for suffering the immobilized result. However per the damage table, an already immobilized vehicle that suffers an immobilized result loses an additional hull point.

**Rated_lexxx** · 10-09-2012, 01:37

A follow up question. Can I use flickerfield 5+ invule against the immobilization results

**wyvirn** · 10-09-2012, 02:47

Yes, from the DE FAQ, 5th page.

**Spetulhu** · 10-09-2012, 03:59

Flickerfield works vs DT Immobilized? The FAQ granting that is every bit as odd as the one assigning hull point damage for it. It's a straight up damage result, not a glancing or penetrating hit which is what vehicles usually get to save against.

On the other hand, infantry get to use their Inv saves so why shouldn't vehicles?

**Sons of Lorgar** · 10-09-2012, 08:29

And vehicles are supposed to use cover to compensate for too low hull points values...

**Grentain** · 10-09-2012, 09:14

From a cinematic or practical perspective, I think it makes sense. After all, if your vehicle takes sufficient damage from an exterior source such that it is no longer able to move, I'd wager there's probably some damage to the hull. By the same account, I can understand taking invulnerable saves against it; after all, if you can shrug off anti-tank weaponry with it, why not some rocks that might've been in your path? Only issue there is IIRC the invuln-save-granting wargear isn't necessarily a physical barrier...

**Fle** · 10-09-2012, 10:52

Well rocks do move quite fast after all, and have a habit of throwing themselves in front of your raider as it careens it's way over the battlefield.

Luckily they are also quite stupid and are easily fooled by flickerfields

**Sons of Lorgar** · 10-09-2012, 13:13

Eh, basically the only things besides weaponry to mobility kill a tank IRL is deep soft, wet mud, scattered boulders/concrete obstacles that are too high for ground clearance but low enough for the tank to slide onto between the tracks, or high-speed turns on soft ground, the latter sometimes resulting in a thrown track. NONE of those actually harm the tank physically in any way, since the tanks are designed to suvive shaped charge mine blasts and the like.

**Nurgling Chieftain** · 10-09-2012, 20:50

I'm with Sons of Lorgar: tanks get stuck all the time (largely because their drivers seem to believe they can't, which is closer to the truth than 40K's system

), and short of falling off a cliff it doesn't usually involve any notable hull damage.

**The_Klobb_Maniac** · 10-09-2012, 22:27

@NC and all
I believe this was done in reaction to being notified that people were going to purposely immobilize vehicles in squadrons to get separate units out of the deal. Doing this means that squadroned vehicles become weaker if exploiting the rule-set. A little knee-jerky, but there's only so much they can do with such a complex ruleset. Any rule change => potentially tens or more influenced other rules ya know?

Thread: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Thread Tools

Display

vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Re: vehicle Immoblize result from dangerous terrain test (reduce hull points?)

Posting Permissions