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.

While it is pretty clear that 2 6s will wreck a avergae tnak with 3 hull points, im curios on what the rule call is with the grav guns ignoring cover.
Some say you dont get it because its not a real "pen" or "glance" to take cover saves from, it just immobilizes it and removes a hull point.
some say you can because it inflicts a penetrating type of result, and there fore should get cover.

so which is it dakkajets?

RAW or HIWPI?

Does the Grav Gun say to ignore cover?

The wording of the rule is:

When resolving a hit against a vehicle, roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling for armour penetration as normal. On a 1-5 nothing happens, but on a 6, the target suffers an Immobilized result and loses a single Hull Point.

Page 18 describes cover saves and says:


If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body (as defined on page 8) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model recelve a cover save.

Now vehicles obviously do not have wounds but on page 75 the vehicle rules tell us how to deal with this:

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

Grav weapons do not inflict glancing or penetrating hits against vehicles so do they get the cover save?

Rules as Written is pretty much a mess with this weapon, but technically comes to the conclusion of 'No cover saves for Vehicles.'

This is because, as you fathom, that only penetrating or glancing hits against a vehicle are allowed a save. Many people, myself included, do not believe this was the intention of the weapon in question due to three things: Non-Vehicle models will be allowed cover saves against this weapon, there is a Special Rule designed specifically for ignoring cover saves which is not present on this weapon and the fact we are coming to this conclusion through deductive reasoning instead of being informed of this conclusion by the rules themselves. The third is important because this weapon has specialized rules providing a different sequence of events, and this gives the writer plenty of chances to pen 'vehicles do not get cover saves against this weapon' followed by a fluffy reason or even the crunch one of 'as it doesn't class as a penetrating hit.' The lack of taking this opportunity raises the possibility of it being a over-sight thanks to how poor the rules are written for interaction of Vehicles and Saves.

After all they had to write Errata to grant vehicles Invulnerability saves, so it is clear that the rules detailing Vehicles and Saves have a few problems....

I thought it was clarified that 2 6's will NOT wreck a 3 HP vehicle because you didn't roll the immobilized result on the table, and therefore don't cause the additional hull point to be lost?

Sorry to derail.

I don't argue it when someone really wants their neat toys to ignore saves, but I don't believe it's SUPPOSED to ignore invul and cover saves from vehicles.

It still causes 3 hp, the weapon says on a six it suffers an "immobilized result". So for steps here this is what you do.

1. fire the grav-gun
2. roll for hit (2 hits)
3. instead of rolling for pen, roll a d6 for first hit. (6 is rolled)
4. special rules state an immobilized result is applied.
5. pull out BRB and read immobilized result on vehicle damage table.
6.subtract 1 HP
7. instead of rolling for second pen, roll another d6 (6 is rolled again)
8. special rules once again state an immobilized result is applied.
9. Pull out BRB again and read the immobilized result.
10. subtract 1 HP. Then subtract a second HP as per the entry under immobilized result on vehicle damage table for already being immobilized.

Seems pretty clear cut and dry to me. whether it is rolled for or not, it is still instructed to apply the result from the vehicle damage table. Not part of the result, but the entire entry.

But you didn't roll on the vehicle damage table.

You did not "roll immobilized from the vehicle damage table", so it doesn't suffer an additional hull point.

RAW, it ignores Cover.

You do not suffer a Glancing or a Penetrating Hit, ergo no Cover Save. You simply suffer an immobilized result.

It does deal 3HP for two results of a 6. The first deals a HP and Immobilizes the Vehicle. A second 6 deals a HP, and the duplicate Immobilized deals a third HP.

This is how it works RAW.

Now, I fully expect it to be FAQed in the future to allow a cover save.


In the future you may want to make the thread title more clear, you could be very well getting snap decision votes as Grav obviously does not ignore cover on models that suffer wounds.

Grav weapons are a mess. According to RAW, currently they ignore cover, but only for vehicles, which is bizarre. I voted "psh I don't care" because I play Tyranids and what are vehicles?

 Spellbound wrote:
But you didn't roll on the vehicle damage table.

You did not "roll immobilized from the vehicle damage table", so it doesn't suffer an additional hull point.

Your point would be relevant if that's what the rules on page 74 said.
They don't so your assumption is incorrect.

This thread should be closed, and a new poll opened with instruction to vote one way, HIWPI or RAW. With out knowing why some one voted yes or no the poll has no value.

I did not vote becouse RAW you don't get a cover save, but HIWPI you get that cover save.

My play group uses this version that we wrote ourselves.

Graviton wrote: The roll needed To Wound when firing a grav-weapon is always equal to the majority of the target unit's armour save, to a minimum of 6+. In the event of a tie always use the best armour save. For example, when resolving a hit against a unit of Space Marines in power armour, you would need a 3+ To Wound. When resolving one or more hits against a vehicle, roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling for armour penetration. On a 1-5 nothing happens, but on a 6, the target suffers a penetrating hit. Instead of rolling on the Vehicle Damage table the target automatically looses a hull point and suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table. Grav-weapons have no effect on buildings.

Well what do the top tournaments rule it as?

Didnt vote as its not specified if its RAW or HIWPI

RAW: No cover save

HIWPI: Cover save

Same. Cannot vote, as the poll is not clear what answer you want.

RAW is abundantly clear - no cover save
RAI? A mess, as ever.
HIWPI - whatever my opponent using grav guns says, as I wont ever be fielding them myself. If they want to give me cover, thats fine with me.

RAW No, HIWPI Yes.

Yet another thread that makes me want to allow Grav weapons only after I get to slap the opponent for making the game more complicated. :-P

RAW: No
HIWPI: Yes if I'm using the model, whatever opponents wants when he uses it.

Side Note: I do not think Grav weapons remove two hull points per 6 rolled.

ok so it seams that it woudl be better if i changed the poll, so thats going to be changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ok so i changed a few things in the poll, first to poll question being "do you play with grav guns ignoring cover" and changed the poll options.

It's a much better poll now, but could do with a bit of spelling/grammar checking.

I should avoid this thread but I use Grav guns and they are wonderful.
I vote you get a cover save.

So to anyone saying you don't apply the additional hull point for the second imobilized result then you shouldn't apply the part about not being allowed to move the vehicle either. It doesn't make sense to say you apply only half of the table result.
Your arguement is that it's not the immobilized result as if you rolled it on the damage table so why stop at just the part with the additional hull point? It's not the damage table so that part on the damage table where you don't get to move the rest of the game, thats not happening either right? Why would it? It's not like imobilized result is defined anywhere else so hey I get to keep moving vehicle around derka derka.

IF the grav gun deals 3 HPs on 2 6s, then it does not ignore cover.


You receive cover from glancing/penetrating hits.

The ability for it to remove 3 HPs is contingent upon using a result from the penetrating hit table, therefore it caused an automatic effect (immobilized) on the penetrating hit table. Therefore you may take cover saves versus a grav gun.

blaktoof wrote:
IF the grav gun deals 3 HPs on 2 6s, then it does not ignore cover.


You receive cover from glancing/penetrating hits.

The ability for it to remove 3 HPs is contingent upon using a result from the penetrating hit table, therefore it caused an automatic effect (immobilized) on the penetrating hit table. Therefore you may take cover saves versus a grav gun.

Not true. At all really.

The ability to remove 3HPs is contingent on following the rules - the rule in question being:

p74 wrote:Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle

What do Grav Guns cause? Immobilised results. It has literally nothing to do with the penetrating hit table, therefore your assertion is incorrect.

blaktoof wrote:
IF the grav gun deals 3 HPs on 2 6s, then it does not ignore cover.


You receive cover from glancing/penetrating hits.

The ability for it to remove 3 HPs is contingent upon using a result from the penetrating hit table, therefore it caused an automatic effect (immobilized) on the penetrating hit table. Therefore you may take cover saves versus a grav gun.

Grav Guns cause immobilise results and dont cause penetrates/glances. This has been proven a bazillion times on this forum and most people have accepted that.
The result of this being true is a loss of 3HPs on 2 6's and no cover saves.

Most people i know play 3 HP from 2 6's and tend to grant cover saves and from the comments in this thread this seems to be played that way in a lot of other gaming groups as well.

Does the grav gun have the ignores cover USR or state it ignores cover saves vs anything?

 juraigamer wrote:
Does the grav gun have the ignores cover USR or state it ignores cover saves vs anything?

......
wow.
Thank you for not reading the rules discussion, because that is not what the discusson is about.

Yeah Gravguns do the "immobilised result" from the vehicle damage table so you apply that result. I am surprised people think that you wouldn't apply that result. The first one stops you moving any later ones (or ones done to already immobilised vehicles) result in 2 HPs lost. The rules are 100% clear here.

Whilst technically it does not cause a glancing/penetrating hit there is no mention of the vehicle ignoring cover so I'm 100% certain that is not the intention. I run 8 Grav Centurions and would always give cover (and would demand it against someone playing against me with grav).

The Grav weapons need more clarification to work RAW. But we can easily work out what is intended.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
IF the grav gun deals 3 HPs on 2 6s, then it does not ignore cover.


You receive cover from glancing/penetrating hits.

The ability for it to remove 3 HPs is contingent upon using a result from the penetrating hit table, therefore it caused an automatic effect (immobilized) on the penetrating hit table. Therefore you may take cover saves versus a grav gun.

Not true. At all really.

The ability to remove 3HPs is contingent on following the rules - the rule in question being:

p74 wrote:Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle

What do Grav Guns cause? Immobilised results. It has literally nothing to do with the penetrating hit table, therefore your assertion is incorrect.

The only way you are permitted to achieve an immobilized result from shooting/assaulting a vehicle in the rulebook is by rolling on the vehicle damage chart. The only permission you have to roll on said chart in the rulebook is to have a penetrating hit. The rule on 74 you state comes from said chart, that can only be rolled on by achieving a penetrating hit in the rulebook.

I concede that you do not roll on the chart as per the rules for gravgun state the effect. The rules for gravguns also do not state they count as a penetrating or glancing hit.

Would you play it, and or do you feel RAW a grav gun would remove quantum shielding if it immobilizes something?

as to the cover issue, it obviously has no rule allowing it to ignore cover, or deny cover saves.

blaktoof wrote:
The only way you are permitted to achieve an immobilized result from shooting/assaulting a vehicle in the rulebook is by rolling on the vehicle damage chart.

Correct. Are Grav Guns in the rulebook?

Would you play it, and or do you feel RAW a grav gun would remove quantum shielding if it immobilizes something?

I feel that the rules say Quantum Shielding wouldn't drop. I don't play either SM with grav guns or Necrons so I don't care how it would play.

as to the cover issue, it obviously has no rule allowing it to ignore cover, or deny cover saves.

Which is entirely irrelevant when you look at the actual rules.

By strict RAW, you cannot take a cover save if a vehicle is hit by a grav gun.

Since I am always the one FIRING them, I have always let my opponents decide how it should work. (Seems the most sporting option, here.) If an opponent shot ME with them and let me have my druthers, I'd go with vehicles getting a cover save.

That is how i have been doing it.