Questions in regards to these two things

[Begel Dverl]

Looking at the dark angel's drop pod wording it says " has suffered an Immobilized damage result"

On pg. 74 these are the qualifications to losing a hull point:
Glancing and penetrating hit.

It's not glancing which you would take any results. I would argue it's not a pen hit since the Immobile rule does not state it is taking a penetration hit.

If you do as it says and go to result 5 on the table it says nothing about taking a hull point. It goes into immobilized and what it means. Interesting you lose a hull point and not a weapon if a pen hi would gt this result vs drop pod.

I'll look some more, but as it is worded you shouldn't take a hull point. If worded that it took a pen hit and have the immobile result than yes. It does not say anything about the drop pod taking a pen.

But that is the Dark Angels, not the other Space Marine codices.

As far as I know, this has never actually been a problem in 5th edition or even 6th edition until the DA came out.

Unless I missed an All-Marine FAQ, I don't see how their rule applies to the other two-three codices.

Then again, I could have missed something.

[Chicop76]

Looking at the dark angel's drop pod wording it says " has suffered an Immobilized damage result"

On pg. 74 these are the qualifications to losing a hull point:
Glancing and penetrating hit.

It's not glancing which you would take any results. I would argue it's not a pen hit since the Immobile rule does not state it is taking a penetration hit.

If you do as it says and go to result 5 on the table it says nothing about taking a hull point. It goes into immobilized and what it means. Interesting you lose a hull point and not a weapon if a pen hi would gt this result vs drop pod.

I'll look some more, but as it is worded you shouldn't take a hull point. If worded that it took a pen hit and have the immobile result than yes. It does not say anything about the drop pod taking a pen.

But that is the Dark Angels, not the other Space Marine codices.

As far as I know, this has never actually been a problem in 5th edition or even 6th edition until the DA came out.

Unless I missed an All-Marine FAQ, I don't see how their rule applies to the other two-three codices.

Then again, I could have missed something.

The point is that it's up to date without me downloading the space marine FAQ. It is not a specal rule and would apply to Marine drop pods. Looking at the space wolves one it still worded where you wouldn't take a hull point. The only differance is the Dark Angel book reflects the 6th edition codex and it's easier to see what GW wanted in effects.

With the Dark Angel one it's worded better where th Space Wolf one for example might have you leaning toward taking a hull point vs not taking one. Without looking at the space marine FAQ which I should do I would say the Dark Angel imobile will reflect the marine FAQ. I will look at my FAQ that is already downloaded to see if I have a drop pod using army in it and see if they cover the issue.

[Charistoph]

Drop Pods "counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered an Immobilised damage result."
Dangerous Terrain tests cause a vehicle to become instantly Immobilised.

2+2=4
7-3=4

Same results, different path, and yet, 2, 3, and 7, are not equal to each other.

Just because they have a same result in no way means that they arrive there by the same path or have all end results the same.

Proof that they loose a Hull Point or take a Glancing or Penetrating Hit still has yet to be proven.

[DEF Knight]

All that aside you're claiming precedent from codexes that are an edition out of date, which somewhat reduces their value...

[Chicop76]

All that aside you're claiming precedent from codexes that are an edition out of date, which somewhat reduces their value...

I was going by Dark Angels. Looking at the othe space marine faq they do mention drop pods 3 times in them, but fails to mention hull points like it do with difficult terrain.

The reason why I think they may lean toward th hp is this.
1. Drop pod comes in vis imobile
2. Drops in difficult terrain and get another imobile which causes weapon destroyed
3. Drop Pod is now weaponless
This is 5th

In 6th this is what happens.
1. Drop pod auto imobile
2. Lands in difficult terrain get immobile result which cause hullpoint
3. Still have a drop pod with weapon minus two hull points due to dangerous terrain and on double immobile

The change in rules allows the unit to shot now where before it would had lost the weapon. I looked everywhere and there is no referance to the drop pod losing a hull point. Vehicles moving throuh difficult terrain would lose a hull point on a roll of one, but

[Narric]

I thought Drops Pods couldn't land on Difficult Terrain? SO isn't that a moot point?

[Chicop76]

I thought Drops Pods couldn't land on Difficult Terrain? SO isn't that a moot point?

They can scatter into. They only reduce landing on immpassible terrain and other models. They still can scatter off the table and into terrain. Wait they can still land on models as well, but you have to be really, really, really dumb to ds directly on top of a model.

[Begel Dverl]

I thought Drops Pods couldn't land on Difficult Terrain? SO isn't that a moot point?

They can scatter into. They only reduce landing on immpassible terrain and other models. They still can scatter off the table and into terrain. Wait they can still land on models as well, but you have to be really, really, really dumb to ds directly on top of a model.

But they'll still reduce their scatter to the point where they don't land on the model. The same thing goes with difficult terrain, last time I checked.

[Chicop76]

I thought Drops Pods couldn't land on Difficult Terrain? SO isn't that a moot point?

They can scatter into. They only reduce landing on immpassible terrain and other models. They still can scatter off the table and into terrain. Wait they can still land on models as well, but you have to be really, really, really dumb to ds directly on top of a model.

But they'll still reduce their scatter to the point where they don't land on the model. The same thing goes with difficult terrain, last time I checked.

No only it does not reduce for difficult. Also you would have to place the drop pod on top of a model with a hit for it to mishap on a model.

[Arguleon-veq]

Yeah Pods can land in difficult terrain.

Its all to do with the FAQ ruling that a failed dangerous terrain makes you lose a hull point because you are becoming immobalised by it. There is no definitive answer yet but my group play it as a hull point lost as do most of the tournaments my mates have attended.

[Chicop76]

Yeah Pods can land in difficult terrain.

Its all to do with the FAQ ruling that a failed dangerous terrain makes you lose a hull point because you are becoming immobalised by it. There is no definitive answer yet but my group play it as a hull point lost as do most of the tournaments my mates have attended.

That's my point. The main FAQ corrected that the pod takes a hull point when it drifts in terrain, but under the other marine FAQ you have 3 FAQ's with drop pod rules, and do not mention that it starts off with a hull point missing. If they intended it to be missing a hull point than they would say so like they did when it drifts in terrain.

By your reasoning the drop pod can become a wreck when it comes in the game. That would be - 1 hull point for just playing with a drop pod. - 1 for landing in difficult terrain. -1 when you roll an immobile result and already immobile you take another hull point which would wreck the vehicle.

If they intended for the pod to take a hull point it would say so in the book and would also say so in the FAQ. The only reason I hearing you believe it does is because it takes a hull point in difficult terrain. Which they had to FAQ and add it which is not in the main book. If the FAQ stated any immobile results caused a hull point than I can go with that. It does not. It specificly states it has to land in difficult terrain to take a hull point.

[Arguleon-veq]

As far as I'm aware its nothing to do with difficult terrain its just the fact that you lose a hull point when you get immobalised by one. I'm not fussed either way as it only helps me for them not to lose hull points but as I think it can be argued that it should lose one I will play it that way unless my opponent says I can land with full points, saves any difficulty in game and doesn't cost me too much (although I did lose a game last week because of first blood which they got from quadgunning 2 HP from my pod).

I totally get were the other side of the arguement is coming from as I play jaws as not allowing reanimation protocols but people are now saying they get it because celestine gets back up from it, to which I say 'sure she does, but she isn't getting back up with reanimation protocols'.which is essentially what someone has said to me in this thread. As I said though, I'm willing to let the pod HP issue slide as its not a huge deal but I will argue the jaws point because its so huge for my army against one of the hardest armies. 

[Chicop76]

So I guess spores should come in with a wound now too. I understand the other side, but the rule is simply there, so you do not move the darn thing.

[Charistoph]

So I guess it's just an 'order of events' type thing?

Drop Pod on Open Terrain:
Good, no damage, no HP loss, no problem.

Drop Pod on Difficult/Dangerous Terrain:
Moves in to Terrain and fails check then because it is already Immobilized then receives another Immobilized result.  Failed Check causes a loss of Hull Point.  Second Immobilization causes the loss of a second Hull Point.

Would that be agreeable until properly answered?

[Chicop76]

So I guess it's just an 'order of events' type thing?

Drop Pod on Open Terrain:
Good, no damage, no HP loss, no problem.

Drop Pod on Difficult/Dangerous Terrain:
Moves in to Terrain and fails check then because it is already Immobilized then receives another Immobilized result.  Failed Check causes a loss of Hull Point.  Second Immobilization causes the loss of a second Hull Point.

Would that be agreeable until properly answered?

That is RAW. As it is now to gjust give it hull point damage is just making up rles and assuming that it takes a hull point for simply not moving. If you play this way I would argue that everything that comes in via ds should take a wound or hit point damage.