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 know you didn't, and you were.

I was pointing out that if you refuse to acknowledge FAQs as setting precedent then suddenly you may find things that don't work (such as the Manticore in 5th edition). Obviously, FAQs don't always set precedent (and this may be one of those time), otherwise ICs would not be able to jump in a Drop Pod with the unit. The question is, when are we able to use a FAQ for a specific "thing" in a specific codex to say "This is what GW intends." and when do we say "This only applies to this single instant"?

That's a hard question to answer, I generally think it's something that changes how the game plays but the easily sold FAQ precedents either address the brb, general gaming issues (wounding to maximum range) or change a general mechanic. These usually have small leaps to expand beyond their specific example or clearly clash with the rules.

However the FAQ precedent of DT did make people conclude that Drop pods take a hull point loss upon landing. A precedent I never agreed with and was FAQed itself.

The Grav-Amp says that it allows the user to re-roll to wounds, as well as rolls to penetrate enemy vehicles. It seems like THAT'S precedent for the graviton weapons special rule against vehicles to be treated as an ordinary roll to pen.

In any event, if you go with the line of thought that says that you cannot take cover saves against Graviton weapons, then you also could not use the Grav-Amp to re-roll your damage against vehicles.

Personally, I would never try to claim that Graviton weapons were intended to ignore cover in regards to vehicles. Still, thought this bore mentioning.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
However the FAQ precedent of DT did make people conclude that Drop pods take a hull point loss upon landing. A precedent I never agreed with and was FAQed itself.

That's my point. GW made a change and people were saying "Hey, this screws that up." GW realised this and (since it was not the intent) fixed the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
The Grav-Amp says that it allows the user to re-roll...rolls to penetrate enemy vehicles..

No, it says the bearer can re-roll to determine the effects. Grav-Amp never mentions Penetration (unless there was an iDex change that I don't know about).

So everyone agrees RAW no cover. Also, out of curiosity when was the DE FAQ written?

The question first appeared in the FAQ Dec 5, 2011.

 Jimsolo wrote:
The Grav-Amp says that it allows the user to re-roll to wounds, as well as rolls to penetrate enemy vehicles.

No, it doesn't. Which renders your second paragraph incorrect. Using actual rules is cool.

So was the flicker field question from 5th edition? Maybe it related to 5th edition and not 6th.

This is just random thoughts mind you, not a solid argument point.

That was when it first appeared. They kept it in the 6th ed FAQ.

 Imperator_Class wrote:
So everyone agrees RAW no cover. Also, out of curiosity when was the DE FAQ written?

Yes that's the RAW, however, I count only 3 posters in this entire thread that said they play it that way.

Don't the rules for invuln saves say that they may be taken even when you cannot take another save and the DE FAQ is a clarifying that?

Is there actually somewhere in the rulebook where it discusses vehicles and invuln saves?

atsuno11 wrote:
Don't the rules for invuln saves say that they may be taken even when you cannot take [an armor] another save and the DE FAQ is a clarifying that?

Fixed that for you with the red text.

 DeathReaper wrote:

atsuno11 wrote:
Don't the rules for invuln saves say that they may be taken even when you cannot take [an armor] another save and the DE FAQ is a clarifying that?

Fixed that for you with the red text.

And ignored the second part of the question entirely. And you didn't fix anything. I asked a question.

atsuno11 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

atsuno11 wrote:
Don't the rules for invuln saves say that they may be taken even when you cannot take [an armor] another save and the DE FAQ is a clarifying that?

Fixed that for you with the red text.

And ignored the second part of the question entirely. And you didn't fix anything. I asked a question.

Well since your question was based on incorrect information, it is not relevant. Maybe rephrase the question now that you have the correct rule?

(P.S. I fixed the part that was incorrect. you stated that "Don't the rules for invuln saves say that they may be taken even when you cannot take another save" which clearly is not what the rules say).

 DeathReaper wrote:

atsuno11 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

atsuno11 wrote:
Don't the rules for invuln saves say that they may be taken even when you cannot take [an armor] another save and the DE FAQ is a clarifying that?

Fixed that for you with the red text.

And ignored the second part of the question entirely. And you didn't fix anything. I asked a question.

Well since your question was based on incorrect information, it is not relevant. Maybe rephrase the question now that you have the correct rule?

(P.S. I fixed the part that was incorrect. you stated that "Don't the rules for invuln saves say that they may be taken even when you cannot take another save" which clearly is not what the rules say).

The correct response then is "No, as the rules state..."

Regardless, what about the second part of my question?

The correct response was to fix the error :-)

The DE FaQ? what about it, clarify your question please.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The correct response was to fix the error :-)

The DE FaQ? what about it, clarify your question please.

My question is where is the rule about invulnerable saves and vehicles? I'm trying to find it.

Allow me to craify even more. I have heard people stating that Invuln saves require a glance or a pen, yet I cannot find a referance to these in the vehicle section or the invulnerable save section of the rulebook. I am wondering where it is (and if I am merely blind)

Check the FAQ for the BRB Atsuno, its on the first page.

 Happyjew wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
The Grav-Amp says that it allows the user to re-roll...rolls to penetrate enemy vehicles..

No, it says the bearer can re-roll to determine the effects. Grav-Amp never mentions Penetration (unless there was an iDex change that I don't know about).

My bad, then. Book is locked in the car. Could have sworn that's what it said.

However, I stand by the notion that any opponent I tried to tell couldn't take a cover save against graviton weapon hits to his vehicles would in all likelihood refuse to play me ever again. And probably be justified in doing so.

People want to argue what is RAW, but ignore the fact that there is a USR that specifically addresses Ignoring Cover. If the weapon doesnt have this USR than it doesnt have permission to use the effect.

I swear, some people here in YMDC just like to argue (which is fine, ask my wife) but at some point please just kindly shut up and be a productive member of this forum.

Otay, thanks.

Moridan wrote:
People want to argue what is RAW, but ignore the fact that there is a USR that specifically addresses Ignoring Cover. If the weapon doesnt have this USR than it doesnt have permission to use the effect.

No one has ignored this irrelevant fact.

I swear, some people here in YMDC just like to argue (which is fine, ask my wife) but at some point please just kindly shut up and be a productive member of this forum.

How about no? I am a productive member of this forum (I'd like to think so anyway), but posts like yours are not.

While a lot of the 'arguments' on this site seem to be wasted time this is not always the case and those situations lead to a greater understanding of the rule, more then enough to justify the debates which fail to have a point. I have personally learned a few things from on this site, with most of those lessons coming from the older members whom are the most likely to debate the meaning of a single word if they feel it changes the contexts of an entire sentence. Sometimes it simply requires debating in order to communicate new ideas and I find it more productive to the site then people whom throw out criticism that people argue too much.

Moridan wrote:
People want to argue what is RAW, but ignore the fact that there is a USR that specifically addresses Ignoring Cover. If the weapon doesnt have this USR than it doesnt have permission to use the effect.

You seem to think that it ignores cover. It doesn't. The debate was on wether or not a cover save is even triggered or not by Grav (RAW, it doesn't)

Some people here like to argue such rediculousness as the meaning of the word "a". You should be politicians.

I am all for a "greater understanding of the rule", but at what point does this become... pointless? There is a huge difference between better understanding a rule and learning how to argue the meaning of a word. In this case, the end goal is simple. How would this rule be interpreted by TOs? From my research, its NOT the cheesy argument presented by some that the grav gun mysteriously ignores cover (disallows cover saves to be taken) versus vehicles but doesnt have the same affect against every. other. model. type.

Maybe I am wrong and the purpose of YMDC is to discuss wording and semantics instead of how rules should be interpreted in normal/competitive game play. Please correct as necessary.

Moridan wrote:


I am all for a "greater understanding of the rule", but at what point does this become... pointless? There is a huge difference between better understanding a rule and learning how to argue the meaning of a word. In this case, the end goal is simple. How would this rule be interpreted by TOs? From my research, its NOT the cheesy argument presented by some that the grav gun mysteriously ignores cover (disallows cover saves to be taken) versus vehicles but doesnt have the same affect against every. other. model. type.

Maybe I am wrong and the purpose of YMDC is to discuss wording and semantics instead of how rules should be interpreted in normal/competitive game play. Please correct as necessary.

This forum is to discuss the rules, by any relevant means. People who are coming across as pedantic to you are stimulating to others. If you don't like certain discussions just don't take part or filter your thread. I have friends who collect rules to games they don't even "play." To some the playing part is in understanding the rules better

I fully understand your grief though, to anyone just looking for the fairest way to play I see how it gets exhausting sometimes. This thread is all about exhausting the rules though until we can interpret the fairest way.

Just my 2 cents.

 Imperator_Class wrote:

Moridan wrote:
People want to argue what is RAW, but ignore the fact that there is a USR that specifically addresses Ignoring Cover. If the weapon doesnt have this USR than it doesnt have permission to use the effect.

You seem to think that it ignores cover. It doesn't. The debate was on wether or not a cover save is even triggered or not by Grav (RAW, it doesn't)

So HWYPI?

and

If it was FAQed, how do you think it would be ruled?

To me these 2 questions are always more important than RAW.

FAQ is likely to allow cover saves based on the DE FAQ precedent. Both cover and invuln trigger on pen/glance, dangerous terrain causes neither, yet allows invulns.

Since grav vs vehicles has the same wording and the weapon does not ignore cover, that would be my bet.

Of course we've all been proved wrong by GW in the past as tyranid FAQs have violated established rules, precedent, and RAI.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
FAQ is likely to allow cover saves based on the DE FAQ precedent. Both cover and invuln trigger on pen/glance, dangerous terrain causes neither, yet allows invulns.

Since grav vs vehicles has the same wording and the weapon does not ignore cover, that would be my bet.

Of course we've all been proved wrong by GW in the past as tyranid FAQs have violated established rules, precedent, and RAI.

Space Marne vehicles will be allowed cover saves. Eldar will not as our vehicles are already broken. Tyranids will of course get no cover save at all.

sorry to necrothread this a little but I feel that this was not addressed properly, and I have been having a discussion within a close group of friends recently about this topic:

p121 of the space marine codex: states what grav weapons do

the part about infantry is irrelevant, only that in summation on a roll of a 6 INSTEAD of rolling for penetration, an immobilized result and -1 hull point is applied.

vehicle cover saves on p74-75 are very clear about what you can take a save against and what grants a save vs fire.

to answer those of you that stated that the ignores cover USR is required, I would say that you are incorrect in your summation, if the weapon had been given the ignores cover USR then it would have made grav guns the single most over powered ranged weapon in the game since it sits pretty at AP2.

all those grav shots at ap2 that ignore cover means bye bye any infantry they are pointed at, the weapon is intended as a kill switch for vehicles, as such it was worded appropriately to make it so.

it is, as others have said a little messy and requires a clarification FAQ, and I do believe that a cover save 'should' be granted, but as it currently stands

RAW: no cover saves for vehicles.

 Moridan wrote:
People want to argue what is RAW, but ignore the fact that there is a USR that specifically addresses Ignoring Cover. If the weapon doesnt have this USR than it doesnt have permission to use the effect.

As others have mentioned an effect that does not trigger a cover save is not the same as one which ignores cover. Take the marker light for example, it does not have ignores cover, but cover saves may not be taken as no wounds, glancing or penetrating hits are caused.