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.

I did a search, couldn't find anything on this. My natural instinct would be to say, of course vehicle get cover as per normal! But then I read the rules closely. Am I missing anything or is this a nice little perk for throwing hailmary shots at vehicle? A bike squad with two gravguns and a combi-grav have an okay chance of getting that single '6'.

VEHICLE / COVER (p75 Rulebook)
Obviously, vehicles cannot Go to Ground, voluntarily or otherwise. If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a save of 5+ for awood and so on).If the save is passed, the hlt is discarded, no Hull Points are lost and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table. If a special rule or a piece of wargear makes a vehicle obscured even if in the open, this is a 5+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex.

GRAV WEAPON (p121 Marine dex)
When resolving a hit against a vehicle, roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling for armour penetrations normal. On a 1-5 nothing happens, but on a 6, the target suffers an lmmobilised result and loses a single Hull Point.

Yes RAW no cover save. This is most likely an over sight. The vehicle cover save rules flat out don't work RAW (for instance if you pass them you only ignore any wounds caused not HPs or damage results). It may be intentional but I strongly doubt it and would play that they get cover saves (that ignore the HP and immobilised result if passed) until an FAQ says differently.

Grav Centurions are actually excellent tank hunters so this will come up a lot.

Let us not forget the whole 'vehicles ignore the ignore cover special rule' arguments. It is the same situation here, they designed vehicle based cover saves in such a way that it doesn't fit at all well with the pre-existing rules for cover. This leaves huge loopholes and openings to exploit but like normal there is no official ruling from Game Workshop that would close this gap. As it currently stands, Grav-guns allow you to bypass all saves on vehicles.

We can just hope, because how common this question will be, that this time Game Workshop actually takes a look at the broken vehicle cover rules and re-writes it to better fit the rest of the game mechanics.

Makes all vehicles have unit profiles vs vehicle profiles and be done with it. Make special armor piercing weapons that do multiple wounds vs things ID'd as vehicles.

Done.

No more fiddly bits.

I can see why keeping them separate gains additional benefits, restrictions and flexibilities but if given enough time I could probably duplicate similar results with the non-vehicle rules. I don't feel like sitting down with the rule book and re-writing the thing though, all in order to fix something that could easily be directly addressed and corrected by Game Workshop. Still sure it wouldn't be too difficult if given enough time and motivation to get the same chance of penetrations using toughness and Armour saves as you would get with Armour Values.

If its suffering a hp loss then cover saves can be taken IMHO .
Centurions are going to destroy pretty much anything they shoot at. The cover saves just fine..

In that case would you allow cover for dangerous terrain tests that are failed?

Kisada II wrote:
In that case would you allow cover for dangerous terrain tests that are failed?

Do you get a cover save against non-shooting attacks? Or against non-attacks for that matter? (no)

PS : RAW I do believe there is no cover save for a vehicle vs a grav weapon, however I do think that the intention is that you can still take a cover save (and that is HIWPI)

Rorschach9 wrote:

Kisada II wrote:
In that case would you allow cover for dangerous terrain tests that are failed?

Do you get a cover save against non-shooting attacks? Or against non-attacks for that matter? (no)

False. You get a cover save against anything that its not explicitly denied for.
The reason you don't here is because vehicles can only take cover saves against penetrating or glancing hits - neither of which occurs here.

Kisada II wrote:
In that case would you allow cover for dangerous terrain tests that are failed?

No, because the rules for dangerous terrain specifically deny cover saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Kisada II wrote:
In that case would you allow cover for dangerous terrain tests that are failed?

Do you get a cover save against non-shooting attacks? Or against non-attacks for that matter? (no)

False. You get a cover save against anything that its not explicitly denied for.
The reason you don't here is because vehicles can only take cover saves against penetrating or glancing hits - neither of which occurs here.

Would you deny Invulnerable saves then, since those can only be taken against penetrating or glancing hits?

Yes, absolutely. RAW anyway.
HIWPI I'd let my opponent have invuls but not cover. Just feels more right.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, absolutely. RAW anyway.
HIWPI I'd let my opponent have invuls but not cover. Just feels more right.

What about Dangerous Terrain? Are you allowed an Invulnerable save against those? After all, that is not a penetrating/glancing hit.

Only if you have a flicker field according to someone I saw on warseer (Since it is FAQed for Dark Eldar but not in the main rulebook)

The RAW argument is technically correct. ((The best kind of correct! ))

I'd never tell an opponent I was grav-gunning that he couldn't have his cover save though. That seems about on par with the "the assault vehicle rules technically make it to where my terminators can charge during YOUR assault phase if you wreck my Land Raider" argument in terms of absolute silliness. RAI are clearly intended for the cover saves to still be intact.

I don't think it's easy to say the RAI is clear at all.

It's a weapon that only has a 1/6 chance of doing anything. I could completely see the intention being that it ignores cover, otherwise it seems underwhelming for their new weapon type.

I wouldn't be surprised to find it FAQed either way, but with current RAW I would say it seems clear that it does not allow cover saves. Even invuls I'm hesitant.

The current order of operations seems that it is:

1) Roll to hit.
2) For each hit roll a d6, on a 6 the vehicle suffers an immobilized result.
3) Vehicle suffers a hullpoint & becomes immobilized.

I don't know where you would properly insert taking saves here. To me it's like rolling a save against the D6 to see if Tesla happens on nearby targets (not the same as taking saves against the armor pen from the subsequent D6 S5 shots). It's simply a D6 which causes an effect to occur.

Right. After the d6 for the tesla weapon, you don't roll cover saves. Instead, you roll cover saves after the effect of that hit is resolved. (The roll to wound, in the Necron example.)

In your order of operations, the cover save would happen between 2 and 3. Again, RAI, not RAW (which does, technically, support the argument that there are no cover saves at all for vehicles).

I don't think it's easy to say the RAI is clear at all.

It's a weapon that only has a 1/6 chance of doing anything. I could completely see the intention being that it ignores cover, otherwise it seems underwhelming for their new weapon type

If they wanted it to ignore cover they would have told you it does, they would not have left you to work it out on a semantic argument. As for it being underwhelming I have to completely disagree. You have a special weapon that does the same as a plasma but sucks against hordes however on the upside it has an extra shot and is great against pretty much all the power house units at the moment (Riptides, Broadsides, Wave Serpents, Scythe-guard, Wraith Knights, Wave Serpents, Crisis suits, Dreadknights etc).

Also on the Centurions it is 5 shots a model and has an 11/36 chance to get the result. So basically any Centurion squad firing at a vehicle and it is dead with or without cover saves.

I take it when a vehicle rolls a successful cover save from a normal gun you play it by the RAW that they just ignore any wounds caused and go on still remove the Hull Point and roll onthe damage table?

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, absolutely. RAW anyway.
HIWPI I'd let my opponent have invuls but not cover. Just feels more right.

What about Dangerous Terrain? Are you allowed an Invulnerable save against those? After all, that is not a penetrating/glancing hit.

Isn't there an FAQ allowing that?

At least we are almost all agreed on the RAW, however as far as the RAI is concerned, I do not think it is a mistake. Gravity is intensifying around the vehicle, making it too 'heavy' to move. How does hiding behind a wall or popping smoke help that? It makes perfect sense and I don't think it will be FAQ'ed away.

I think this is just one of those 'people don't like change' things, because we are used to our vehicles getting cover saves.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
How does hiding behind a wall or popping smoke help that?

The same way smoke helps against a Battlecannon shell.
The smoke obscuring the tank causes the shot to miss, interference messes up targeting systems etc
It's a abstract system, cover saves makes lots of sense against them, and I hope an FAQ allows them.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
At least we are almost all agreed on the RAW, however as far as the RAI is concerned, I do not think it is a mistake. Gravity is intensifying around the vehicle, making it too 'heavy' to move. How does hiding behind a wall or popping smoke help that? It makes perfect sense and I don't think it will be FAQ'ed away.

I think this is just one of those 'people don't like change' things, because we are used to our vehicles getting cover saves.

How does a fern stop you soul from being sucked out?
You get cover saves vs Spirit Leech. GW is weird sometimes.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
How does hiding behind a wall or popping smoke help that?

The same way smoke helps against a Battlecannon shell.
The smoke obscuring the tank causes the shot to miss, interference messes up targeting systems etc
It's a abstract system, cover saves makes lots of sense against them, and I hope an FAQ allows them.

I don't agree. The fluff for Grav says it effects a localized field, so unlike a missile or bullet it doesn't need to hit a specific target.

Anyway, opinions aside, my point was mainly that people shouldn't expect it to be FAQ'ed away just because they don't like it.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
How does hiding behind a wall or popping smoke help that?

The same way smoke helps against a Battlecannon shell.
The smoke obscuring the tank causes the shot to miss, interference messes up targeting systems etc
It's a abstract system, cover saves makes lots of sense against them, and I hope an FAQ allows them.

I don't agree. The fluff for Grav says it effects a localized field, so unlike a missile or bullet it doesn't need to hit a specific target.

Anyway, opinions aside, my point was mainly that people shouldn't expect it to be FAQ'ed away just because they don't like it.

If you look at the cover rules, it also describes how the obscurement might prevent the shot even being fired.
Or it misses hugely.
Like I said, abstract system. Still makes sense to allow it.

Echoing what many other have said, I think the technical RAW reading is correct, but is probably not intended. Having played this game for awhile now, and come across quite a few of these situations, I would bet money that it will get fixed in an FAQ eventually. Might take them a year, but that's GW for you. I personally will give my opponent's cover/invulnerable like normal.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
At least we are almost all agreed on the RAW, however as far as the RAI is concerned, I do not think it is a mistake. Gravity is intensifying around the vehicle, making it too 'heavy' to move. How does hiding behind a wall or popping smoke help that? It makes perfect sense and I don't think it will be FAQ'ed away.

I think this is just one of those 'people don't like change' things, because we are used to our vehicles getting cover saves.

It is not about not liking it or being afeaid of change. Personally I'm having 8 Grav Centurions in my army. But GW don't write rules like that let's look at a few points:

1) then why do non-vehicles get cover?
2) why would grav weapons work when they completely miss or are not fired (which passed cover saves can represent).
3) why didn't they say they ignore cover why leave it up to a semantic argument?

As someone who will field grav weapons at some point Ill be allowing cover saves etc since the weapon dont say "ignores cover"

Personally I think people like to jump on something to make it more overpowered than intended and try anything to justify the claim.

Actually, no invuln saves are allowed either. You can only take an invuln save against a wound, glancing, or penetrating hit.

A grav gun does not cause a glancing or penetrating hit. It simply removes a hull point+immobilizes on the roll of a 6. It is an effect
that just happens. And it is also fair, considering it is a rather short ranged weapon and you need to roll a 6 to make it happen.

I do hope it gets FAQed, because the prevalence of grav guns would certainly threaten my vehicle-less, Monstrous Creature army as a side effect. It also adds a moral dilemma for the next few weeks to anyone who takes grav guns to a tournament. Do you insist that vehicles don't get those saves, when you know it will probably change? I felt the same way when Dark Eldar first came out and the rules let beast packs benefit from pain tokens. I chose not to do that in the first few tournaments because it did eventually get changed and those victories would be erased.

I can imagine all the third-party companies are currently busy sculpting counts-as grav guns at this very moment.

I dont have my BRB infront of me at work, but isnt this effect similar to Haywire?

Anyone that honestly thinks that GW intended for this weapon to ignore cover saves against vehicles, when it doesnt ignore cover saves against other models, is seriously delusional. I mean really, as if GW wouldnt take their normal care in ensuring their rules are completely clear...

Moridan wrote:
I dont have my BRB infront of me at work, but isnt this effect similar to Haywire?

Similar but different.

Anyone that honestly thinks that GW intended for this weapon to ignore cover saves against vehicles, when it doesnt ignore cover saves against other models, is seriously delusional. I mean really, as if GW wouldnt take their normal care in ensuring their rules are completely clear...

Right now they haven't made any intent known other than what the rules say.
I can see them allowing it to ignore cover on vehicles, but allowing invul saves.