Okay, under the Graviton rule on page 121 of the new Codex: Space Marines, it states the following:

"...but on a 6, the target suffers an Immobilized result and loses a single Hull Point."

That sounds like two different effects. Immobilized + 1 Hull Point.

Now, on the Vehicle Table on page 74 of the rule book under 5. Immobilized, it states:

"Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle... instead removes an additional Hull Point."

So say I've opened fire on an undamaged enemy vehicle with a squad of Devastator Centurions and roll two 6's for damage. What's the end result? The first hit would inflict an Immobilized result on the vehicle and inflict 1 Hull point of damage, that's certain. But does that mean that the second shot would inflict two Hull Points of damage? Thanks for the help.

Sounds like a reasonable reading to me.

That's the way I read it too.

Closest thing I could find in the rulebook FAQ was this.

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

I see 2 results are possible, one saying it causes an immobilized result and causes 1 hull point lost(so one lost), the 2nd shot would also do the same, but since it already is immobalized(as a rule not a damage roll on the chart) and specifies 1 hull point lost, you would lose(one hull point) so 2 lost total for the 2 6's rolled.
Other viewpoint i can see is as stated from other users above as if its already immobalized its suffers a hull point loss, plus the hull point loss to the rule. So im lost in my own explanation.

Your listed FAQ does not apply. The answer is 3 hull points. I have a large explanation, as well as answers to other questions here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/550850.page

I agree that it should be 3 hull points.

Reading your view of it makes sense, 2 shots, 3 hull points. w00t

Holy Terra, a clear consensus on YMDC?!

Everyone watch out for flying pigs while your out and about today...

 Sothas wrote:
Your listed FAQ does not apply. The answer is 3 hull points. I have a large explanation, as well as answers to other questions here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/550850.page

The FAQ does and it doesn't apply, yes a 2nd shot will ruin most people's day but there is a reason that FAQ exists and it's important that people that believe that spend ages going on about how a drop pod looses a hull point when it deploys don't start pulling shenanigans.
I am glad that FAQ exists or it would be a case of 1 shot taking out all light vehicles with a grav gun.

3 shots to kill a landraider is powerful indeed. Im not looking forward to fighting grav guns.

One lascannon can kill a land raider with one shot, with about the same odds of success.

A unit's shooting happens simultaneously, so 2 shots/sixes would only inflict 2 hull points and the vehicle would be immobilized. You only inflict the additional hull point if the vehicle was immobilized prior to the centurions shooting.

I go for 2 Hull points.

Because the Immobilised isnt caused by a penetrating hit. You can only glance a tank, thus the penetrationtable wouldnt kick in.

Three hull points.
Shot 1: 1HP and Immobilize
Shot 2: 1HP and Immobilize, but it's already Immobilized so a second HP!
Total: Three Hull Points

But what are the chances of that happening?
A biker-squad has 6 shots.
That are four hits that need double 6!

tallguynsc wrote:
A unit's shooting happens simultaneously, so 2 shots/sixes would only inflict 2 hull points and the vehicle would be immobilized. You only inflict the additional hull point if the vehicle was immobilized prior to the centurions shooting.

The shooting happens simultaneously, but damage results absolutely do not.

Fandarel wrote:
I go for 2 Hull points.

Because the Immobilised isnt caused by a penetrating hit. You can only glance a tank, thus the penetrationtable wouldnt kick in.

What basis in rules do you come to this conclusion?
Why does a pen need to happen to cause immobilisation? The damagae table comes into play in how you have to implement the damge inflicted on a vehicle.

Kangodo wrote:
Three hull points.
Shot 1: 1HP and Immobilize
Shot 2: 1HP and Immobilize, but it's already Immobilized so a second HP!
Total: Three Hull Points

But what are the chances of that happening?
A biker-squad has 6 shots.
That are four hits that need double 6!

Why?
2 weapons hit, roll on the chart, 2 6's... -3 hull points.

That's what I said.

You said 4 hits that need double 6's.
There's only 2 hits required and they need to roll 6s.

So no, that's not what you said.

He said 4 hits because that's the average number of hits you'd expect with 2 gravguns.

If the shooting happens at the same time, the damage happens at the same time. The only time you roll tank damage one at a time is for a vehicle squadron, otherwise you roll the damage at the same time.

So a squad of 4 Centurions, fires 20 GC shots... 13 hit, 2 on the first roll should get 6's (that's -3 HP right there). The other 11 reroll (Grav Amp), getting 1-2 more... dead LR. Math hammers to 4.12 immobilizes a turn (that's not counting the extra from additional immobilized results... which would make it 7.12 a turn... watch out Leman Russ Squads)

Same squad had LC instead. That's 4 shots, 3.5 hits, 1.19 hull points, 20% chance to destroy

At 24", GC are far more deadly to AV14 than LC, at longer ranges and lower AV, the LC catch up quick, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tallguynsc wrote:
If the shooting happens at the same time, the damage happens at the same time. The only time you roll tank damage one at a time is for a vehicle squadron, otherwise you roll the damage at the same time.

So I can destroy the same weapon 4 times on the same vehicle?

rigeld2 wrote:
You said 4 hits that need double 6's.
There's only 2 hits required and they need to roll 6s.

So no, that's not what you said.

I said that a Biker-group will average on 4 hits, and only two of those need a six.
So it's exactly what I said.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You said 4 hits that need double 6's.
There's only 2 hits required and they need to roll 6s.

So no, that's not what you said.

I said that a Biker-group will average on 4 hits, and only two of those need a six.
So it's exactly what I said.

Ah - I misunderstood - that's not clear.
Thanks.

tallguynsc wrote:
If the shooting happens at the same time, the damage happens at the same time. The only time you roll tank damage one at a time is for a vehicle squadron, otherwise you roll the damage at the same time.

By this logic, if I shoot a tank with a pair of melta guns and score 2 weapon destroyed results, I only get to remove 1 weapon.

No, if you get 2 weapon destroyed results and the tank has multiple weapons, 2 random weapons get destroyed and lose 2 hull points. But if there's only 1 weapon, just lose 1 weapon.

Unfortunately for my Land Raiders and Rhinos, I think the 3 hull point for 2 Grav Gun 6s is correct.

 Sothas wrote:
Your listed FAQ does not apply. The answer is 3 hull points. I have a large explanation, as well as answers to other questions here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/550850.page

Did anyone bring up the fact yet that Grav specifically says you lose a single hull point?

Yeah 3 HPs I literally don't see any other way to read it. Think of it this way if we were back in 5th would you argue against a 2nd (and subsequent) 6(s) causing weapon destroyed?

As for the veracity of this tactic then consider Grav Centurions. 5 shots a model and 6s rerolling a squad of 3 should Kill a Landraider nearly every time they shoot it.

tallguynsc wrote:
If the shooting happens at the same time, the damage happens at the same time. The only time you roll tank damage one at a time is for a vehicle squadron, otherwise you roll the damage at the same time.

No, that's not how it works.

Did anyone bring up the fact yet that Grav specifically says you lose a single hull point?

I'm sure we all know that Grav weapons cause a single HP and have another effect (immobilised on an non-immobilised vehicle and extra HP on already immobilised vehicles).

The specified loss of one HP and the additional Immobilized result satisfies the conditional bonus HP loss. 1+1+1 = 3. It is pretty clear RAW and I don't know how anyone could read it differently.

I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

By that logic it cannot wreck a vehicle, because it says it loses "a single hull point" and not that it can wreck the vehicle.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

If you're not applying the second Immobilized result you're not reading it as written. What does the BRB tell us happens to Immobilized vehicles that become Immobilized again?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

If you're not applying the second Immobilized result you're not reading it as written. What does the BRB tell us happens to Immobilized vehicles that become Immobilized again?

Profit!

I'm on the side that it's a 2HP loss on additional rolls of a 6.

I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

We are reading as written. We are taking away a single hull point and then the immobilised result forces us to take away an additional Hull Point. Why are you ignoring those rules?

Also if this was back in 5th would you argue that a weapon that simply immobilised on a 6 would not cause weapon destroyed on every 6 after the first?

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? What happens when you get an immobilised result on an immobilised vehicle?

 FlingitNow wrote:
What happens when you get an immobilised result on an immobilised vehicle?

Ooh, ooh, I know this. Pick me, pick me. It uhh...hold on...ummm...oh it...wait, no that's not right...doesn't it...well crap. I thought I knew the answer....

It can move again!
Because it's like when you hit someone and they get amnesia, and if you hit them again they remember everything!

Kangodo wrote:
It can move again!
Because it's like when you hit someone and they get amnesia, and if you hit them again they remember everything!

That's what I thought. But could not remember through my alcohol-infused brain.

Disclaimer: My alcohol-infused brain does not support the vast consumption of delicious alcohols. Persons under the legal drinking age of their country should not drink without adult supervision. Drinking may cause blurred vision and destroy the logic centers of your brain forcing you to lose games of Warhammer 40,000. Please drink irresponsibly. Responsibly, sorry.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

If you're not applying the second Immobilized result you're not reading it as written. What does the BRB tell us happens to Immobilized vehicles that become Immobilized again?

FAQ wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

Is grav a glancing hit? No. No hull point loss for excessive Immobilized results.

Is grav a penetrating hit? No. No hull point loss for excessive Immobilized results.

Is grav an effect that specifies that a hull point is lost? Well, yes. But after you've applied the normal damage from grav, you've already lost your hull point, you're done. The FAQ merely tells us that it is possible to lose hull points through effects that aren't defined as glancing or penetrating hits as long as they specifically call for hull point removal. But the way the majority here reads it, you're basically applying the same hull point loss twice, going against both RAI and RAW, which says that a grav hit removes a single hull point. If it said immobilized plus and additional hull point, you might have had a case. But after you're done applying damage and you're stripped two hull points when the rule says you strip a single one, you're doing something wrong.

As it's written right now, I'd have to throw my lot in with the 3 Hull points group.
(1 hull point & immobilized) + (1 hull point & immobilized on an already immobilized vehicle, which means another hull point) = 3


I'm expecting an FAQ soon to really address the issue. This, alongside grav currently ignoring cover against vehicles, makes them too powerful when compared to plasma weapons of the same cost.
I'll wait before I order any.

That's not what that FAQ says at all.

All it says is that you can suffer one of those effects without additional hull point loss (IE from a drop pod landing).
That FAQ does not say to ignore the rules for immobilize (which is what you're attempting to do).

You misunderstand the FAQ!
The FAQ is there to explain that 1HP + Immobilize does not cause 2 Hull Points.
People used to claim that becoming Immobilized would also cause the loss of a Hull Point.
They actually tried to argue that a Deep Striking Droppod would automatically lose 1 HP because it got immobilized.
That's what the FAQ is for.

Vehicle-DT: "Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or a Flyer with Locked Velocity (pg 81) instead remove an additional Hull Point."
Graviton: "but on a 6, the target suffers an lmmobilised result and loses a single Hull Point."

So it suffers an Immobilized result.
What happens when an Immobilized vehicle suffers ANOTHER Immobilized result? It loses an additional Hull Point.
You'd have a case if Graviton caused the vehicle "to become Immobilized", but not with the current wording.

I think we can drop the pod argument. The SM codex very clearly says the Drop Pod being Immobile does not cause a HP loss.

So whether or not the FAQ was to address the Pod is moot. At least for SM.

Nobody is bringing up that discussion again
The FAQ says no and the new Codex says no!
I just wanted to explain what the FAQ was for. It's to explain that it is an entire different scenario.

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

My advice is to read an entire FAQ before you post it as it destroys your argument. Does an Immobilise result specify you lose an additional Hull Point if you are already immobilised? If so then the bolded part applies.

That FAQ was about Drop Pods auto losing HPs because they immobilise on landing. Also without that FAQ there would be an argument that Grav weapons did 2 HPs from the FIRST hit and 3 from any after that.

The FAQ part is of no importance here. Look at the series of events. First 6 cause the vehicle to lose a hull point and become immobilized (one hp down total). Second 6 causes the vehicles to lose a hull point and become immobilized as well, however the part you are overlooking is what happens to a vehicle that is immobilized if it becomes immobilized again, the answer has been pointed out and is found in the BRB that said vehicle loses an additional hull point. So the tally is one from first shot, one from second shot and a third from the second immobilization.

2 things:
1) they are not resolved at the same time, P.73 BRB states that once hits are resolved you roll once for each and resolve seperately. It is after all a weapon that hits.
2) the wording on a penerating hit is basically the same, vehicle loses 1 hull point and suffers a result on the vehicle damage table.
So your arguement to nullify the additional lose of a hull point from the second damage would have to apply to normal pens as well, after all it to says loses a single hull point. And if that is the case why put the wording for a second hull point loss to begin with.
The FAQ applies just fine, the imobilized result does not cause a loss of a hull point, the loss of a hull point causes you to lose a hull point and the second imobilized result causes an additional hull point loss. The key word in the FAQ is "Automatically" and the answer is no it doesn't automatically lose an additional hull point the conditions set forth cause the additional loss

I'm with two hull points.

It doesn't really matter what the table says should happen if you roll an additional immobilized result because you are never rolling on that table to begin with.

If you hit a vehicle with a grav gun, then you immobilize it and it looses a single hit point.

If you hit the vehicle with another weapon you follow the vehicle table, and if you roll another immobilized then you follow the rules in the table and it strips two hull points.

If you hit the vehicle with another grav weapon then you follow the rule in the codex (with beats out the BRB) and it takes a single hull point. Not "a single hull point, unless it is already immobilized then it's not a single..."

Specific rules overwrite BRB rules.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm with two hull points.

It doesn't really matter what the table says should happen if you roll an additional immobilized result because you are never rolling on that table to begin with.

If you hit a vehicle with a grav gun, then you immobilize it and it looses a single hit point.

If you hit the vehicle with another weapon you follow the vehicle table, and if you roll another immobilized then you follow the rules in the table and it strips two hull points.

If you hit the vehicle with another grav weapon then you follow the rule in the codex (with beats out the BRB) and it takes a single hull point. Not "a single hull point, unless it is already immobilized then it's not a single..."

Specific rules overwrite BRB rules.

By the same logic when you hit my tank with your Grav weapons, I can keep moving it?
After all the details in the imobilized result from the BRB are what prevents me from moving it; and the wording is "Suffers and Imobilized result" which isn't defined in the codex

 d-usa wrote:
I'm with two hull points.
It doesn't really matter what the table says should happen if you roll an additional immobilized result because you are never rolling on that table to begin with.
If you hit a vehicle with a grav gun, then you immobilize it and it looses a single hit point.
If you hit the vehicle with another weapon you follow the vehicle table, and if you roll another immobilized then you follow the rules in the table and it strips two hull points.
If you hit the vehicle with another grav weapon then you follow the rule in the codex (with beats out the BRB) and it takes a single hull point. Not "a single hull point, unless it is already immobilized then it's not a single..."
Specific rules overwrite BRB rules.

-Okay, you'd be wrong though.
-The additional Hull Point is not caused by rolling on the table, it's caused by suffering an Immobilized Result.
-True.
-Yes.
-Yes, a single hull point and an immobilized "result". That result causes a second Hull Point to be lost if the vehicle was already Immobilized.

The "a single hull point" does not mean nothing else can happen.
Proven easily by the fact that removing the last hull point will cause it to be wrecked.
According to you that wouldn't happen, since it's not included in the Grav rule.. Right?

I'm with the loss of 2 hullpoints in that scenario. One immobilized result doesn't happen before the other, and they are resolved simultaneously. Separately doesn't mean non-simultaneously.

So when I shoot with two Melta and both penetrate and both score an Immobilize result, you only lose two Hull Points?

I think the final decision hinges on the written "immobilized and a single hull point" vs the interpretation that would require it to read "immobilized and an additional hull point".

That's how I've always played it, Kangodo.

BRB Pg. 74 wrote: Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle, or a Flyer with Locked Velocity (see page 81) instead removes an additional hull point.

The only argument I see for 2HP being removed on additional rolls due to the vehicle already being immobilised is that it says "Any Immobilized results" and since the grav weapon does not roll on the Vehicle Damage Table you are not getting a 'result' from the table.

I don't have the SM Codex so the wording may say something like "on a roll of a 6 vehicles suffer an immobilised result."

Am I saying that this is correct? No. I am saying this is the only argument I could see people using to fight against losing 3HP, even if it is weak. This may be how some interpret it.

Edit: The "single hull point" i would say has some grounds as well as due to it saying 'single' it could be interpreted as meaning no more than one can be lost per shot.

Well, you don't do all the results at the same time.
Otherwise a vehicle could explode 5 times or you could destroy the same weapon multiple times on a vehicle with 5 weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redkeyboard wrote:
I don't have the SM Codex so the wording may say something like "on a roll of a 6 vehicles suffer an immobilised result."

That is exactly what it says: "but on a 6, the target suffers an lmmobilised result and loses a single Hull Point."

The rule book says to resolve each hit one at a time, and stop immediately when it becomes wrecked or destroyed. It is not at the same time. It's like p. 73.
And it's suffers an Imobilized result. Not becomes Imobilized
Edit: Kangodo beat me to it

Kangodo wrote:
Well, you don't do all the results at the same time.
Otherwise a vehicle could explode 5 times or you could destroy the same weapon multiple times on a vehicle with 5 weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 redkeyboard wrote:
I don't have the SM Codex so the wording may say something like "on a roll of a 6 vehicles suffer an immobilised result."

That is exactly what it says: "but on a 6, the target suffers an lmmobilised result and loses a single Hull Point."

In that case there is very little ground for the argument with only 2HP rather than 3HP imo.

"The FAQ part is of no importance here. Look at the series of events. First 6 cause the vehicle to lose a hull point and become immobilized (one hp down total). Second 6 causes the vehicles to lose a hull point and become immobilized as well, however the part you are overlooking is what happens to a vehicle that is immobilized if it becomes immobilized again, the answer has been pointed out and is found in the BRB that said vehicle loses an additional hull point. So the tally is one from first shot, one from second shot and a third from the second immobilization."

Brilliantly stated. : )

There is a minor issues I can see with the 3 HP for 2 shots idea is the way Resolving damage and The Immobilized table entry are phrased in the BRB.

pg 74 under Penetrating Hits
"Apply any appropriate modifiers (they are all cumulative) and look up the result using the Vehicle Damage table on the left."

pg 74 in the Vehicle Damage Table in the Immobilized Entry
"Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or Flyer with Locked Velocity (see pg 81) instead removes an additional Hull Point."


The term result is specific as referring to a Penetrating hit. For the Grav-gun this is a help and a hindrance. It bypasses cover saves because it specifically calls out effects (hull point, immobilized), but won't get additional Hull Points because of the same reason. The BRB never addresses Immobilized in any other way that tells you to remove hull points for immobilization unless it is via a penetrating hit.

The key question is why is anyone taking the waste of points centurions?

Back on topic though.

Is the vehicle already immobilized?

Yes. is the damage being done by something other than a mandatory immobilization such as pod landing yes.

then you abide by the immobilized rule of the BRB

Except of course that a grav gun causes an Immobilized result.

Yes and an already immobilized vehicle suffering an additional immobilized looses an additional hull point.

wargamer1985 wrote:Yes and an already immobilized vehicle suffering an additional immobilized looses an additional hull point.

Meant my reply for pk1 - you ninjaed me :p

pk1 wrote:There is a minor issues I can see with the 3 HP for 2 shots idea is the way Resolving damage and The Immobilized table entry are phrased in the BRB.

pg 74 under Penetrating Hits
"Apply any appropriate modifiers (they are all cumulative) and look up the result using the Vehicle Damage table on the left."

pg 74 in the Vehicle Damage Table in the Immobilized Entry
"Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or Flyer with Locked Velocity (see pg 81) instead removes an additional Hull Point."


The term result is specific as referring to a Penetrating hit. For the Grav-gun this is a help and a hindrance. It bypasses cover saves because it specifically calls out effects (hull point, immobilized), but won't get additional Hull Points because of the same reason. The BRB never addresses Immobilized in any other way that tells you to remove hull points for immobilization unless it is via a penetrating hit.

rigeld2 wrote:
Except of course that a grav gun causes an Immobilized result.

My apologies as your post had no direction I was unsure who it was aimed at and therefor replied

pk1 wrote:
The term result is specific as referring to a Penetrating hit. For the Grav-gun this is a help and a hindrance. It bypasses cover saves because it specifically calls out effects (hull point, immobilized), but won't get additional Hull Points because of the same reason. The BRB never addresses Immobilized in any other way that tells you to remove hull points for immobilization unless it is via a penetrating hit.

"[O]n a 6, the target suffers an immobilised result and loses a single hull point." (C:SM, p 121)

The BRB doesn't address the distinction between damage results caused by penetrating hits and damage results generated through other means because there isn't a distinction. A vehicle suffering an immobilized result is immobilized, while additional immobilized results cause the vehicle to lose hull points. It doesn't matter if those results are generated via dangerous terrain tests, shooting, or whatever.

The term result is specific

Yes it is an it appears in the Grav Weapons rules. You suffer an "immobilised result".

I wonder how many indeed if any of those arguing for 2 HPs have actually read the Gravgun rules. So many of them are posting arguments like PK1s where it is clear they haven't actually read the gravgun rules (or indeed the thread).

To point out I have and clearly causing an immobilized result twice clearly causes 3hp of damage. Otherwise you are stating the first immobilized result after the auto immobilized result for a drop pod will not do an additional point of damage

Yeah I agree that you get 3 HPs. I was questioning those who believe you don't like pk (who I quoted) who was making a RAW argument about a rule he clearly had not read.

you lose a HP, are immobilized,

you lose another HP, and are immobilized again (ie-1 HP)


that adds up to three in my books...

makes perfect sense for something like the graviton guns

To me the issue is about the timing.

Simply put can a unit shoot upon a "fresh and mobile" target and cause an "already immobilzed effect?

Clearly two or more units can cause this effect. However in this thread we talk about 1 unit shooting in 1 phase.

When shooting all shoots from one unit happens simultaneously. Just like you (the shooter) can choose in which order saves are taken against a unit, and subsequently how a whole unit gets to shoot even if you put down a template which might cause models to be removed to still be eligible for hits (well that's how we do at the club). and some guys might have been out of rapidfire range in if the flamer had killed it's targets initially. Or how a couple of flamers can roast a unit through causing a bucketful of wounds and a force a lot of saves to be rolled for.

Please explain from the BRB how and why shots are not fired simultaneously if that is your stance. If nothing else than because I want to kill some more tanks with my new centurions and put up a valid argument in the club. A similar argument to what's in this thread caused me to loose first blood.

Check damage resolution. Whilst shooting is simultaneous damage is resolved sequentially.

For instance I shoot at you command squad with the Apothecary being the nearest model. He will get FnP but once he dies the unit would not get against the rest of the wounds from the same units shooting.

To be honest I don't know of anyone that would have played 2 immobilised results from 1 unit not being and extra HP removed until the grav weapons came out.

Think of it this way if a unit shot a vehicle with 2 weapons and got 2 weapon destroyed results would you randomise both the weapon destroyed results giving a 50% chance that you just destroyed the same weapon twice or would you say both weapons were destroyed?

Page 13: All of the models in the unit fire at the same time regardless of whether or not all of the dice are rolled together.

Page 73: If any hits are scored, roll for each to see if they penetrate the vehicle's Armour Value, as explained next.

Page 73: Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the...

And we have tons more in the "Shooting Phase"-section that indicate you have to do it one-by-one.
It's what prevents a 1-wound model from taking 10 wounds before dying; you resolve the first wound, let him die, then continue to the next model.

How does the BRB FAQ not apply?

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

The grav weapon has two effects. 1st it has the vehicle suffer the effect of a immobilized result from the Vehicle Damage Table. 2nd it has it loose a single Hull Point. The FAQ seems extremely relevant here. The grav weapon did not cause a Glancing or Penetrating hit and the 1st effect does not specify that a hull point is lost. We cannot count the hull point loss from the second effect for this because then we would be double dipping. Gravitation simply does not meet the special requirements to cause an immobilized vehicle to loose an additional hull point for suffering further immobilize results.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"The FAQ part is of no importance here. Look at the series of events. First 6 cause the vehicle to lose a hull point and become immobilized (one hp down total). Second 6 causes the vehicles to lose a hull point and become immobilized as well, however the part you are overlooking is what happens to a vehicle that is immobilized if it becomes immobilized again, the answer has been pointed out and is found in the BRB that said vehicle loses an additional hull point. So the tally is one from first shot, one from second shot and a third from the second immobilization."

Brilliantly stated. : )

Same as with Drop pods if you immobilse a drop pod it loses another HP.

 DJGietzen wrote:
How does the BRB FAQ not apply?

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

The grav weapon has two effects. 1st it has the vehicle suffer the effect of a immobilized result from the Vehicle Damage Table. 2nd it has it loose a single Hull Point. The FAQ seems extremely relevant here. The grav weapon did not cause a Glancing or Penetrating hit and the 1st effect does not specify that a hull point is lost. We cannot count the hull point loss from the second effect for this because then we would be double dipping. Gravitation simply does not meet the special requirements to cause an immobilized vehicle to loose an additional hull point for suffering further immobilize results.

What special requirements?
A vehicle is hit by a grav gun and it's a 6 on it's special roll.
Loose a hull point and apply the immobilisation result.
Is the vehicle immobilised, if yes do what the rules clearly say.
If no, do what the rules clearly say.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The term result is specific

Yes it is an it appears in the Grav Weapons rules. You suffer an "immobilised result".

I wonder how many indeed if any of those arguing for 2 HPs have actually read the Gravgun rules. So many of them are posting arguments like PK1s where it is clear they haven't actually read the gravgun rules (or indeed the thread).

I stand corrected. I completely missed the word result when I read the grav-gun rules. Yea, it does say result which mean it would get 2 HPs for the second hit.

While we are on the subject, are there any other rules that immobilize a vehicle with out a glancing or penetrating hit (aside from the drop pod assault)?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

What special requirements?
A vehicle is hit by a grav gun and it's a 6 on it's special roll.
Loose a hull point and apply the immobilisation result.
Is the vehicle immobilised, if yes do what the rules clearly say.
If no, do what the rules clearly say.

The vehicle "specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost"

The 1st effect of the a successful gravitation does neither of these things.

Well, Immobilized specifies that a Hull Point is lost on already-Immobilized vehicles.

 DJGietzen wrote:
While we are on the subject, are there any other rules that immobilize a vehicle with out a glancing or penetrating hit (aside from the drop pod assault)?

Dangerous Terrain.

The 1st effect of the a successful gravitation does neither of these things.

You're misreading the FAQ. Horribly. It's been explained why.
The question is asking if a Hull Point loss is included in the mentioned results. The FAQ answers no.
There is nothing in that FAQ asking if you ignore the rules for Immobilised which is exactly what you're doing. This is demonstrated by the fact that you're ignoring the other effects mentioned in the question have no special hull point loss rules associated with them.

Thanks rigeld2 and MrSlowPoke. I can see what your saying and it does make sense.

3hp it is!

How does the same argument over cover saves affect your thoughts on this?

All shooting is simultaneous. We all agree on this. The only thing that happens sequentially is the resolution of hits into glances and penetrations, and for pens, rolling on the vehicle damaged table.

Grav weapons never roll to determine glance or pen => hence the rules that indicate sequential rolling of results are never brought into effect => hence you can only ever get 1 immobilized result per unit shooting, per phase.

My interpretation is that you roll to hit, then roll for grav effect, tally up the 6's, if any, and inflict that number of hull points + immobilized.

I will concede that a second unit, or the same unit in a subsequent turn, that scores a hit, followed by a 6, will then inflict an additional hull point as the vehicle has been previously immobilized.

Anyone care to show the rules that invalidate the above interpretation?

 DJGietzen wrote:
How does the BRB FAQ not apply?

A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost.

Look at the part that I made red.
The suffering from the result doesn't make it lose a HP (like people argued with droppods).
The result itself causes an additional hullpoint because the rule-text of 'Immobilized' says that.

Do you know the "Drop Pod loses a HP on landing"-discussion?
Before C:SM some vehicles got Immobilized due to rules.
People argued that every result from the Damage Table comes with a HP-loss.
Without those FAQ people would now argue that 2 6's cause FIVE Hull Points loss: 2 from Grav, 2 from being Immobilized and 1 from double Immobilize.

2 from being immobilized..? How?

Grav: On a six, the vehicle suffers an Immobilized result.
Immobilized result: If the vehicle is already Immobilized, instead remove an additional Hull Point.

Why do people keep bring up this FAQ? It doesn't apply. This FAQ is about receiving just a damage result without a pen, glance, or other HP loss.

For example. Let's say that I have a weapon, that on hit, it causes a crew shaken. What this FAQ says, is that just because the vehicle suffers a crew shaken, does not mean that it also loses a hull point.

First off, the grav-weapon specifically removes a HP, which this FAQ talks about. When read between the lines, this FAQ also says that it is possible for a vehicle to suffer an affect from the damage chat without penning, glancing, or otherwise losing a hull point in some other way.

Order of operation:
Rolled 2 6s of the gravgun
Resolve one 6.
Vehicle becomes immobilized.
From the immobilized damage result, was it immobilized before? No. move on.
Lose a hull point.
Resolve second 6.
Vehicle becomes immolilized.
From the immobilized damage result, was it immobilized before? Yes. Lose a hull point instead of being immobilized again.
Lose a hull point.

That's 3

 Sothas wrote:
Why do people keep bring up this FAQ? It doesn't apply.

I believe (overall through including other threads) that I was the first to bring up that FAQ, as at the time I did not have the codex and was unaware of the HP loss.

 Sothas wrote:
Why do people keep bring up this FAQ? It doesn't apply. This FAQ is about receiving just a damage result without a pen, glance, or other HP loss.

Because people that missed the entire "A Drop Pod loses a HP on landing!"-discussion might get confused by why they actually made the FAQ and can think it applies to instances like that.
FAQ's aren't that thoroughly understood by most people since they don't follow places like YMDC close enough.

From my entire playgroup I am probably the only one who reads these discussions and has a deeper understanding of the rules.
(And that's not to WAAC my way through games as some people might claim, but due to the rules-knowledge I have discovered that we played a couple of things wrong, putting the armies that already had a low W/L-ratio at a disadvantage.)

That's 3

I actually like this thread because many people came in here, saying that it was only 2 and agreed when others provided proof.

I am, however, extremely pissed at Natfka for bringing this up in an environment that is not suited to discuss these things.
He just started a blog (read by thousands of people) and wrote something that was nothing more than "U R WRONG!" while 'quoting' the wrong stuff.
I call it 'quoting' because his 'quotes' left important words out of the rules-text.
He says that "On a 6 the vehicle is immobilized and loses a hull point." while the actual rules say it "suffers an Immobilised result" (bolded by me), which is the strongest argument for it losing 3HP in total!

Totally annoying >.> he's a bringer of news, a reporter, he should address things like this neutrally and not pull a 'Fox News'.

 conker249 wrote:
3 shots to kill a landraider is powerful indeed. Im not looking forward to fighting grav guns.

4 shots to kill a Land Raider, as the above sequence of events results in a vehicle losing 3 hull points.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
3 shots to kill a landraider is powerful indeed. Im not looking forward to fighting grav guns.

4 shots to kill a Land Raider, as the above sequence of events results in a vehicle losing 3 hull points.

Three shots. 1 + 2 + 2 > 4.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
3 shots to kill a landraider is powerful indeed. Im not looking forward to fighting grav guns.

4 shots to kill a Land Raider, as the above sequence of events results in a vehicle losing 3 hull points.

2 shots is 3 HP. 3 shots is 5 HP. 4 shots is 7 HP.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
3 shots to kill a landraider is powerful indeed. Im not looking forward to fighting grav guns.

4 shots to kill a Land Raider, as the above sequence of events results in a vehicle losing 3 hull points.

3 shots.
Shot 1 - lose HP, suffer Immobilise (1 HP total gone)
Shot 2 - lose HP, suffer Immobilise ->lose another HP (3 HP total gone)
Shot 3 - lose HP, suffer Immobilise ->lose another HP (5 HP total gone)

I need to go to bed. My mind seems to be intertwining '3 shots' and '3 hull points' freely. I misread that one so incorrectly.

Strike that as GM 0 - Dakka 1

OK, the grav weapon causing the HP loss in addition to the immobilized result has ZERO baring on why the FAQ does not apply.

Lets make up a weapon for the purpose of this discussion.

EMP missile Range:48" S:- AP:- Type: Heavy 1, Blast, EMP

EMP: EMP weapons have no effect on non-vehicle units. When resolving a hit against a vehicle do not roll for armor penetration. Instead the the vehicle suffers an Immobilized result.

This weapon if fired once at a perfectly normal land raider would cause that LR to be immobilized but not loose any hull points. If it was fired again at that same land raider it would cause that LR to loose a single hull point. The FAQ tells us the land raider would not loose the hull point just because it suffered a result on the VDT. This is why the 1st shot does not remove a HP. The FAQ also tells us that some other effect can specify that a hull point is lost. In this case some other effect is the immobilized result. PG 74 of the BRB clearly states that an immobilized vehicle that suffers an immobilized result looses a hull point.


And that's why the FAQ does not stop a grav weapon from removing two hull points when it successfully damage an immobilized vehicle. The immobilized result is another effect removing a hull point and the grav gun itself is removing another hull point.

I can't see any reason why it would be only 2 HP's gone, 3 HP is the only way that makes sense to me

you can already do this with other guns..

a squad of 3 lascannons, actually has a good chance to get two immobile results (multiple weapon destroyed where theres no more weapons also counts as immobile as well)

when 3 lascannons pen, and roll multiple immobile results, you strip the extra HP for the extra immobile result... this isnt new.

they could also just blow the thing up on a 6 too

you need a specific rule that tells you to ignore the instructions under the immbile result that tell you to strip the extra HP, or you do in fact strip that HP, just like with EVERY OTHER instance of two immobile results being rolled.

Anpu-adom wrote:
I'm with the loss of 2 hullpoints in that scenario. One immobilized result doesn't happen before the other, and they are resolved simultaneously. Separately doesn't mean non-simultaneously.

Agreed. Two hull points here.

Now, if you had two units firing grav guns and both caused separate immobilize results than that would be a total of 3 hull points lost. Or if the vehicle was already immobilized and you hit it with grav guns and got another immobilize result, that would be a third.

The key here is that the damage results from shots fired from a single unit affect their target at the same time.

Moridan wrote:

Anpu-adom wrote:
I'm with the loss of 2 hullpoints in that scenario. One immobilized result doesn't happen before the other, and they are resolved simultaneously. Separately doesn't mean non-simultaneously.

Agreed. Two hull points here.

Now, if you had two units firing grav guns and both caused separate immobilize results than that would be a total of 3 hull points lost. Or if the vehicle was already immobilized and you hit it with grav guns and got another immobilize result, that would be a third.

The key here is that the damage results from shots fired from a single unit affect their target at the same time.

That's not true. So you also say that 2 lascannons both rolling immobilize result in only 2 HP lost?
Why are you failing to apply one of the immobilizes?

the rules unde rimmobilize, do NOT stipulate that they must be from separate units...

while shooting is simultanious, applying damage most certainly is not, and it is in fact cumulative,

weather you apply two immobiles at the same time, or sequetially, is a moot point.

as soon as you have two immobile results, the rules tell you to take off the additional HP,

you would need an acutal rule allowing you to ignore the 2nd immobile, and the specific rule saying the 2nd immobile strips an extra HP

otherwise you cant destroy multiple weapons either, heck if its all "simultanious" why not apply the removed hull points all to the same hull point.

I concur, two 6's rolled with a grav gun on the same vehicle deals 3 hull points of damage. Crazy.

I concur, two 6's rolled with a grav gun on the same vehicle deals 3 hull points of damage. Crazy.

Why is this "Crazy" given it is a 1 in 6 chance and you have to do it twice. Compare to a melta so that is a 4:24 chance to do a HP and immobilise on a hit vs melta AGAINST AV14 has a 5:24 chance of removing ALL hull points from a SINGLE hit.

Grav is good against vehicles and anything with lots of armour. What a surprise...

All hits against vehicles are resolved 1 at a time. It's in the rule book people. It's not at the same time

All hits against vehicles are resolved 1 at a time

The point being made is this is only true for penetrating sang glancing hits. Grav weapons do neither.

Though by that argument you only ever do 1 Hull Point no matter how many 6s are rolled if resolved simultaneously and ignorant of other 6s as that argument requires then removing 1 HP satisfies all 6s rolled...

 CKO wrote:
Okay, under the Graviton rule on page 121 of the new Codex: Space Marines, it states the following:

"...but on a 6, the target suffers an Immobilized result and loses a single Hull Point."

That sounds like two different effects. Immobilized + 1 Hull Point.

Now, on the Vehicle Table on page 74 of the rule book under 5. Immobilized, it states:

"Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle... instead removes an additional Hull Point."

So say I've opened fire on an undamaged enemy vehicle with a squad of Devastator Centurions and roll two 6's for damage. What's the end result? The first hit would inflict an Immobilized result on the vehicle and inflict 1 Hull point of damage, that's certain. But does that mean that the second shot would inflict two Hull Points of damage? Thanks for the help.

Grav weapons do not use penetrating hit table, ergo whatever it says there is irrelevant.
If the grav weapon rule would reference a penetrating hit and/or the penetrating hit table and stipulate that you automatically get result #5, then it would be 3 points. It doesn't, so it's 2 hull points.

Example:

Lascannon hit against rhino front, roll 2, result penetrating hit. Go to penetrating hit table(1), roll 4+1 for AP2=5. Result -1HP + immobilzied.
Lascannon hit against rhino front, roll 3, result penetrating hit. Go to penetrating hit table(1), roll 4+1 for AP2=5. Result -1HP + immobilzied. AND as stated in pen table -1HP since already immobilized.
(1) Penetrating hit table 1-2 Crew shaken (...) 3 Crew stunned (...) 4 Weapon destroyed (...) 5 Immobilized (...) 6 Explosion (...) AND further details see full text!

Grav weapon hit against rhino. Roll on grav result table (2). 6. Result -1HP + immobilized.
Grav weapon hit against rhino. Roll on grav result table (2). 6. Result -1HP + immobilized.
Grav weapon table 1-5 nothing, 6 loss of 1 hull point + immobilized

Without referencing the table, how do you know what an immobilized result does?

Grav weapons do not use penetrating hit table

Grav weapon rules disagree with you here as they state you suffer an immobilised result. Where are you getting your interpretation of "immobilised result" from?

Oh crap. You are right. By saying "immobilized resuld" they do reference the table. My bad for thinking the rules might be reasonable.

So that's 15 shots with a reroll on wounding/vehicles.
15 to hit on 3, ~10 hits, ~1.66.. 6's. Rerolls give another 1.38.. 6's. That's 3 hits per centurion grav cannon squad.
Stupidly strong compared with 3 Kyborgs for the same points.

My bad for thinking the rules might be reasonable.

How are they unreasonable? 3 Centurions are almost guaranteed to be wiped by a single Demolisher shell and only have a 24" range. The weapon is strong against armour Cents for their points are also strong against armoured infantry and vehicles. Compare vs say Broadsides with a 36" range for similar points and the Broadsides will do far more damage vs most opponents with the Cents only doing better vs 2+ save MCs and AV13+. They are about right for their points compared with the top Xenos units.

 FlingitNow wrote:

All hits against vehicles are resolved 1 at a time

The point being made is this is only true for penetrating sang glancing hits. Grav weapons do neither.

Though by that argument you only ever do 1 Hull Point no matter how many 6s are rolled if resolved simultaneously and ignorant of other 6s as that argument requires then removing 1 HP satisfies all 6s rolled...

That and the grav weapons them self say to roll 1 dice for each.
I wonder if people will start arguing you can't wreck a vehicle at all with grav guns since the part were you wreck vehicles is in the glancing and penetrating hit section of the rule book. No less crazy then the argument that its not a rule book immobilized result its some other non existent result that doesn't even prevent you from moving the vehicle since its not defined.

 FlingitNow wrote:

My bad for thinking the rules might be reasonable.

How are they unreasonable? 3 Centurions are almost guaranteed to be wiped by a single Demolisher shell and only have a 24" range. The weapon is strong against armour Cents for their points are also strong against armoured infantry and vehicles. Compare vs say Broadsides with a 36" range for similar points and the Broadsides will do far more damage vs most opponents with the Cents only doing better vs 2+ save MCs and AV13+. They are about right for their points compared with the top Xenos units.

The Centurion Threat range is the same as with the demolisher. The demolisher has no rerolls and needs hope for luck on scatter and cover saves. The Centurions are virtually guaranteed to kill a vehicle in their range. Compare for CSM Obliterators for basically the same point cost with Vet+MoN - Even if you do get 12 shots, you don't get rerolls or take two hull points with one shot - and Obi's have to be strong enough to carry the CSM army together with the hellturkey.

Maybe I should just proxy my CSM models as a Iron Hands SM army, and play them via the new SM codex. That's a big buff right there. ;-]

The Centurion Threat range is the same as with the demolisher. The demolisher has no rerolls and needs hope for luck on scatter and cover saves. The Centurions are virtually guaranteed to kill a vehicle in their range. Compare for CSM Obliterators for basically the same point cost with Vet+MoN - Even if you do get 12 shots, you don't get rerolls or take two hull points with one shot - and Obi's have to be strong enough to carry the CSM army together with the hellturkey.

Sorry Oblits can't take 2 HPs with 1 shot? My maths says they can take FIVE HPs with a single shots as they have melta (and 5 is the most HPs I'm aware of a single vehicle having). Oblits have an invun 2 attacks each and power fists. They also have loads more versatility and hugely greater threat range. Yes if you compare all the Centurions advantages over oblits and completely ignore all of the oblits advantages then yes the Cents are going to look better. Yes the CSM codex isn't great, and yes the SM one is better but not because Centurions are broken. Also for the cost of 3 Centurions you get 2 Vindicators. You can afford to drive into the 24" range pop smoke and you're almost guaranteed to win the shooting battle (with cover its about 50-50 whether the Cents kill a Vindi a single return shot should remove the Cents combat effectiveness at the very least).

I'm not even convinced the Space Marine codex is above Tau and its just out. The Cents give the marines an answer to Riptides, O'Vesa-star and to an extent possibly broadsides. They've also put the final nail in the coffin of Landraiders. But marines still can't deal with the Farsun bomb effectively (auspex helps).

Why is it that when a new unit that does something different comes out everyone cries broken and only considers their strengths and ignored all their weaknesses when comparing them. Also that 24" range makes them very vulnerable to assault where they have 1 S5 AP- attack each...

Can it be this hard?

 FlingitNow wrote:

I concur, two 6's rolled with a grav gun on the same vehicle deals 3 hull points of damage. Crazy.

Why is this "Crazy" given it is a 1 in 6 chance and you have to do it twice. Compare to a melta so that is a 4:24 chance to do a HP and immobilise on a hit vs melta AGAINST AV14 has a 5:24 chance of removing ALL hull points from a SINGLE hit.

Grav is good against vehicles and anything with lots of armour. What a surprise...

I think people's concerns are geared around Centurions and being able to re-roll the results against vehicles. I'm fairly certain that a Centurion unit firing at a Wave Serpent will wreck it every time. Then, if you split fire using Omniscope, you have some grav shots for the unit inside.

 NickTheButcher wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I concur, two 6's rolled with a grav gun on the same vehicle deals 3 hull points of damage. Crazy.

Why is this "Crazy" given it is a 1 in 6 chance and you have to do it twice. Compare to a melta so that is a 4:24 chance to do a HP and immobilise on a hit vs melta AGAINST AV14 has a 5:24 chance of removing ALL hull points from a SINGLE hit.

Grav is good against vehicles and anything with lots of armour. What a surprise...

I think people's concerns are geared around Centurions and being able to re-roll the results against vehicles. I'm fairly certain that a Centurion unit firing at a Wave Serpent will wreck it every time. Then, if you split fire using Omniscope, you have some grav shots for the unit inside.

Err, not sure this is true. 1 unit fires all its shots simultaneously, so you cannot use some to blow up the transport and the rest to shoot the contents. You'll need a second unit to do that.

I think people's concerns are geared around Centurions and being able to re-roll the results against vehicles. I'm fairly certain that a Centurion unit firing at a Wave Serpent will wreck it every time. Then, if you split fire using Omniscope, you have some grav shots for the unit inside.

One you can't do that. 2 with 3 Centurions you should get about three 6s with a 4+ cover it is far from a guarantee you'll even kill the Serpent with a 250 point unit firing from within 24"...

 FlingitNow wrote:

I think people's concerns are geared around Centurions and being able to re-roll the results against vehicles. I'm fairly certain that a Centurion unit firing at a Wave Serpent will wreck it every time. Then, if you split fire using Omniscope, you have some grav shots for the unit inside.

One you can't do that. 2 with 3 Centurions you should get about three 6s with a 4+ cover it is far from a guarantee you'll even kill the Serpent with a 250 point unit firing from within 24"...

Three 6s with what cover save? That's 5 HPs. It is statistically guaranteed that the serpent dies in one shooting phase. Testing out the new dex, my friend killed 2 dreads with one 3 man squad in a single shooting phase. These things are strong. OP? No, not really, but very good.

 Sothas wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I think people's concerns are geared around Centurions and being able to re-roll the results against vehicles. I'm fairly certain that a Centurion unit firing at a Wave Serpent will wreck it every time. Then, if you split fire using Omniscope, you have some grav shots for the unit inside.

One you can't do that. 2 with 3 Centurions you should get about three 6s with a 4+ cover it is far from a guarantee you'll even kill the Serpent with a 250 point unit firing from within 24"...

Three 6s with what cover save? That's 5 HPs. It is statistically guaranteed that the serpent dies in one shooting phase. Testing out the new dex, my friend killed 2 dreads with one 3 man squad in a single shooting phase. These things are strong. OP? No, not really, but very good.

There has been a discussion on whether or not cover saves apply.
No - cover saves (and invlunerable saves) can only be taken against glancing and penetrating hits.
Yes - Invulnerable saves and Dangerous Terrain (see Dark Eldar FAQ) sets a precedent that saves can be taken against damage unless specified otherwise. Graviton does not specify otherwise.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Sothas wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I think people's concerns are geared around Centurions and being able to re-roll the results against vehicles. I'm fairly certain that a Centurion unit firing at a Wave Serpent will wreck it every time. Then, if you split fire using Omniscope, you have some grav shots for the unit inside.

One you can't do that. 2 with 3 Centurions you should get about three 6s with a 4+ cover it is far from a guarantee you'll even kill the Serpent with a 250 point unit firing from within 24"...

Three 6s with what cover save? That's 5 HPs. It is statistically guaranteed that the serpent dies in one shooting phase. Testing out the new dex, my friend killed 2 dreads with one 3 man squad in a single shooting phase. These things are strong. OP? No, not really, but very good.

There has been a discussion on whether or not cover saves apply.
No - cover saves (and invlunerable saves) can only be taken against glancing and penetrating hits.
Yes - Invulnerable saves and Dangerous Terrain (see Dark Eldar FAQ) sets a precedent that saves can be taken against damage unless specified otherwise. Graviton does not specify otherwise.

I'm aware of the discussion. Your post doesn't contradict what I said, why is it brought up? DE FAQ specifies invul, if you want to use that saying invul are taken, and not cover. I'm aware of your post discussing it. I'm not going to discuss the cover here other than saying that FAQ doesn't apply to the cover save, only the invul. So still not cover regardless of wether or not that FAQ is used.

Sothas, you said "what cover save?". It seemed to me you were unaware of the discussion. As to not start up the debate I listed the major reasoning for each side. If people want to discuss it further they can in a different thread.

As agreed I think we all know RAW no cover but clear RAI there is cover. Heck RAW invulnerable saves do nothing for vehicles any way and RAW my Centurions can never fire as they're wearing helmets. But the cover save argument is for another thread.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Heck RAW invulnerable saves do nothing for vehicles any way.

I think someone missed the first entry on the first page in the right column of the Main rulebook FAQ (The Errata)...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Heck RAW invulnerable saves do nothing for vehicles any way.

I think someone missed the first entry on the first page in the right column of the Main rulebook FAQ (The Errata)...

No I see that FAQ. Yes invulnerable saves may be taken against penetrating or glancing hits but if you pass the save you only have permission to ignore any wounds caused by the hit...

 FlingitNow wrote:

I think people's concerns are geared around Centurions and being able to re-roll the results against vehicles. I'm fairly certain that a Centurion unit firing at a Wave Serpent will wreck it every time. Then, if you split fire using Omniscope, you have some grav shots for the unit inside.

One you can't do that. 2 with 3 Centurions you should get about three 6s with a 4+ cover it is far from a guarantee you'll even kill the Serpent with a 250 point unit firing from within 24"...

So I've never used Split Fire before, but it seems to me that it would be allowed:

-Nominate a model to split fire
-Take leadership test
-If test is passed, that model immediately shoots at a target.
-Then it says "once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit, which must be at a different target."

To me, the wording seems like the shooting attacks are not simultaneous, since I have to resolve one before the others are able to resolve their attack.

Either way, this also means that I would only have 1 Centurion to shoot the Serpent, and I doubt that he alone would drop it.

RAW though, 3 Centurions in range will take out a Wave Serpent almost 100% of the time.

Except that all shooting from a squad is simultaneous...

Oh and this errata...

Page 42 – Split Fire
Change the last sentence to “Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit. These must be at a different target and may not be a unit forced to disembark from any Transport that has been Wrecked or suffered an Explodes! result due to the Split Firing unit’s initial shooting attack.”

 grendel083 wrote:
Except that all shooting from a squad is simultaneous...

Oh and this errata...

Page 42 – Split Fire
Change the last sentence to “Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit. These must be at a different target and may not be a unit forced to disembark from any Transport that has been Wrecked or suffered an Explodes! result due to the Split Firing unit’s initial shooting attack.”

Ah! Perfect. Errata certainly clears that up

I'll have to let a buddy of mine know about this!

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Heck RAW invulnerable saves do nothing for vehicles any way.

I think someone missed the first entry on the first page in the right column of the Main rulebook FAQ (The Errata)...

No I see that FAQ. Yes invulnerable saves may be taken against penetrating or glancing hits but if you pass the save you only have permission to ignore any wounds caused by the hit...

Clearly the context of the FaQ tells us that instead of the wound being discounted you ignore the pen or glance.

"or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit" (FaQ page 1)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Heck RAW invulnerable saves do nothing for vehicles any way.

I think someone missed the first entry on the first page in the right column of the Main rulebook FAQ (The Errata)...

No I see that FAQ. Yes invulnerable saves may be taken against penetrating or glancing hits but if you pass the save you only have permission to ignore any wounds caused by the hit...

Clearly the context of the FaQ tells us that instead of the wound being discounted you ignore the pen or glance.

"or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit" (FaQ page 1)

I agree with you on the FAQ entry but "Clearly the context of the FaQ" means its a RAI not RAW.

Not at all, Context needs to be considered for RAW. It is intrinsic to the English Language as context gives meaning to sentences.

Clearly the context of the FaQ tells us that instead of the wound being discounted you ignore the pen or glance.

I disagree that the context clearly tells us that, it at best implies that. It could also imply that you ignore HPs lost (but not damage table results). So with no clear defined function it uses the function we are told it has (ignore the wounds suffered).

It is the same mechanic for wounds as it is for Hull points as all saves work off of the same mechanic.

" If the dice result is equal to or higher than the model's Armour Save characteristic, the Wound is stopped." (16)

The BRB does not define what " the Wound is stopped." means, so we look at the normal English definition and do not proceed with the rest of the wound process.

The same would apply for Glance/Pen's

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is the same mechanic for wounds as it is for Hull points as all saves work off of the same mechanic.

" If the dice result is equal to or higher than the model's Armour Save characteristic, the Wound is stopped." (16)

The BRB does not define what " the Wound is stopped." means, so we look at the normal English definition and do not proceed with the rest of the wound process.

The same would apply for Glance/Pen's

So we're agreed passing an invulnerable save for a vehicle makes it stop the process of any wounds caused to it.

Did any one else notice that the FAQ that seemed to cause this whole thread has been removed from the rule book FAQ.
Also a new FAQ is on there stating

Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.

Starting to think the first shot is two hull points, the second is 3 hull points.

Kisada II wrote:
Did any one else notice that the FAQ that seemed to cause this whole thread has been removed from the rule book FAQ.

Are you referring to this one?

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

If so, it is still there.

Also a new FAQ is on there stating

Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.

That is not new. It's been in the BRB FAQ for a while now (at least 1.4).

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is the same mechanic for wounds as it is for Hull points as all saves work off of the same mechanic.

" If the dice result is equal to or higher than the model's Armour Save characteristic, the Wound is stopped." (16)

The BRB does not define what " the Wound is stopped." means, so we look at the normal English definition and do not proceed with the rest of the wound process.

The same would apply for Glance/Pen's

So we're agreed passing an invulnerable save for a vehicle makes it stop the process of any wounds caused to it.

and the FaQ about invuln saves equate wounds to glancing or penetrating hits for invuln saves.

I have an email from the games-workshop events team from the Throne of Skulls event on Saturday saying 2 grav shots to a vehicle deal 3 hull points worth of damage. Anyone wanting the email forwarded to them, PM me.

Doesn't matter, mails are no official source of rulings.
We could ask 50 GW-teams and we probably get different answers back.

Doesn't matter, mails are no official source of rulings.
We could ask 50 GW-teams and we probably get different answers back.

True but on this subject I'm fairly sure we'd get the same answer back as it is so clear.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

If you're not applying the second Immobilized result you're not reading it as written. What does the BRB tell us happens to Immobilized vehicles that become Immobilized again?

FAQ wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

Is grav a glancing hit? No. No hull point loss for excessive Immobilized results.

Is grav a penetrating hit? No. No hull point loss for excessive Immobilized results.

Is grav an effect that specifies that a hull point is lost? Well, yes. But after you've applied the normal damage from grav, you've already lost your hull point, you're done. The FAQ merely tells us that it is possible to lose hull points through effects that aren't defined as glancing or penetrating hits as long as they specifically call for hull point removal. But the way the majority here reads it, you're basically applying the same hull point loss twice, going against both RAI and RAW, which says that a grav hit removes a single hull point. If it said immobilized plus and additional hull point, you might have had a case. But after you're done applying damage and you're stripped two hull points when the rule says you strip a single one, you're doing something wrong.

To be honest I agree with you here. The FAQ does state that you do not necessarily lose a hull point for an immobilization result.

The faq may state that but the brb damage chart says you'll loose two from a second grav hit.

 DarthOvious wrote:

To be honest I agree with you here. The FAQ does state that you do not necessarily lose a hull point for an immobilization result.

Please read the rest of the thread to learn why that FAQ doesn't apply.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The faq may state that but the brb damage chart says you'll loose two from a second grav hit.

What I want to know is why is the rule worded the way it is if this is the case. Why not just say that on a 6 the viehicle suffers a glancing hit and an immobilised result. It is afterall the same effect and it also follows the wording for the actual game mechanics.

The wording for the grav weapons is very strange in this instance because it deters from the game mechanics so it makes you assume they mean for alternative to happen. It says that on a 6 the vehicles suffers an immobilised result and loses a SINGLE hull point. If you lose a hull point from the immobilised result because you were immobilised before, then does that make up the single hull point you lose in the process? If you lose a hull point from an immobilised result as well as another hull point from the the weapon then that means you have lost two hull points in total, not a single hull point.

If two 6s on grav guns really mean that 3 hull points are lost in the process then that means that the writers of the codex are complete nitwits who don't write rules linked with their own game mechanics. I suppose that could be true but I find it very strange that they just don't say glancing hit along with the immobilised result, since a glancing hit specically causes the loss of a hull point. Whats the point in specifying a SINGLE hull point, why not just say "a hull point". Its very strange indeed and makes me think that the rules as inteneded are not the way that the rules specifically read out for the people here.

In the end I will have to agree that there is a serious argument made for 3 hull points based on RAW alone but I seriously doubt it was RAI because of what I said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

To be honest I agree with you here. The FAQ does state that you do not necessarily lose a hull point for an immobilization result.

Please read the rest of the thread to learn why that FAQ doesn't apply.

I did actually. I made my way through the thread. My response previous to this will give my overall feelings on the matter.

Why not a glance? Because there might be effects that trigger from being glanced.
And why make it "roll 6 > glance > lose 1 HP" when you can shorten it to "roll 6 > lose 1 HP"?

About the the 'single hull point': Because of the FAQ that people keep talking about.
It's to emphasize that "suffering an immobilized result" doesn't cause an additional Hull Point by itself.

People used to argue that suffering an immobilized result makes you lose a hull point.
The new Drop Pod-rules clearly say 'No.'.
The FAQ clearly says 'No.'
And the "single hullpoint' clearly says 'No.' to that.

Kangodo wrote:
Why not a glance? Because there might be effects that trigger from being glanced.

Such as?

Does losing a hull point from an imobilised result count?

And why make it "roll 6 > glance > lose 1 HP" when you can shorten it to "roll 6 > lose 1 HP"?

Because of game mechanics. It then references the actual mechanics of the game. Why not just do this with the rules entirely then? "If you equal the vehicles armour then it loses a hull point", why mention the term "glanicing hit" at all?

About the the 'single hull point': Because of the FAQ that people keep talking about.
It's to emphasize that "suffering an immobilized result" doesn't cause an additional Hull Point by itself.

I understand that now. People are referencing the last sentence within the FAQ to say that effects from the immobilised result count as other effects and thus a third hull point is done in the instance cited. So I understand where they are coming from with that argument.

People used to argue that suffering an immobilized result makes you lose a hull point.

Interesting, so if you immobilise yourself from a dangerous terrain test do you lose a hull point or not? I can't remember what the BRB says about terrain rolls. i.e. do you suffer an immobilised result only without a glancing hit?

But then surely this also causes more confusion since those people will claim you lose 4 hull points in the process and the only way to refute them is to say that a "single hull point" is lost in the wording of the rule. This means that you are taking the rule as an overall inclusive effect of what happens and not as additonals i.e. effect A + effect B. Therefore when a second 6 is rolled on a grav gun then it still only equals 1 hull point in total since you are treating the rule as an overall effect. For instance:

Shot 1 - Player A claims that 2 hull points are lost in total. You deny this and point to the rule that states a single hull point is lost and an immobilised result. You state that the "single hull point" is specifically mentioning that the first part of the sentence where the vehicle is immobilised does not cause a hull point to be lost in itself. Therefore you are treating the rule as inclusive and non additional since the second part references the first part.

Shot 2 - Player A will want to claim 4 hull points are lost in total. You will deny this as saying the same above for shot 1 i.e. effects are overall and inclusive but in shot 2 you will count the "single hull point" as an additional effect rather than an overall effect within the sentence together.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to clear things up IMO.

The new Drop Pod-rules clearly say 'No.'.
The FAQ clearly says 'No.'
And the "single hullpoint' clearly says 'No.' to that.

OK, so are you arguing that a single hull point is lost on an immobilised vehicle being shot by a grav gun on a 6 or two hull points?

I honestly think it would have been easier for them to state a glancing hit and an immobilised result. It works out the same way and references the game mechanics. For instance.

Shot 1 - Vehicle becomes immobilised and loses a hull point.

Shot 2 - Vehicle loses a hull point becase its already immobilised and then loses an additional hull point.

So 3 hull points in total. So if some people try to argue that an immobilised result causes the loss of a hull point then they will try to argue that 4 hull points are lost in total. The fact that the sentence says a "single hull point" won't matter since they will argue that effects are additionals and not overall.

So the very same reasoning that people are using here will be the same reasoning pointed out to them that 4 hull points are lost in total. They will just treat the immobilised result and the loss of a hull point as additionals anyway and still try to claim for 4 hull points lost. Even though they would be wrong. Meanwhile, those that are claiming 3 hull points damage will say that in shot 1 the "single hull point" references the first part of the sentence where an immobilised result occurs but in shot 2 they claim it is an additonal effect rather than inclusive.

Oh my, how complicated things have become.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Why not a glance? Because there might be effects that trigger from being glanced.

Such as?

Helbrutes going apegak crazy because someone shot them.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Such as?

Hellbrutes have a 'Crazed' ability that triggers from glancing/penning them.

Does losing a hull point from an imobilised result count?

How do you mean?

Interesting, so if you immobilise yourself from a dangerous terrain test do you lose a hull point or not? I can't remember what the BRB says about terrain rolls. i.e. do you suffer an immobilised result only without a glancing hit?

You suffer an Immobilized result AND you lose a hullpoint, it has two effects.
That's because the FAQ says so.

Shot 1 - Player A claims that 2 hull points are lost in total. You deny this and point to the rule that states a single hull point is lost and an immobilised result.

No, I will point to the FAQ that says the Immobilize itself does not cause a hullpoint-loss.

It's quite clear, let me explain it with 'math':
1 shot = Immobilize + Hull Point
2 shots = Immobilize + Immobilize + Hull Point + Hull Point = 3 Hull Point and Immobilize.
Why is that? Because the BRB says that "Immobilize + Immobilize = Immobilize + Hull Point"

OK, so are you arguing that a single hull point is lost on an immobilised vehicle being shot by a grav gun on a 6 or two hull points?

2 Hull Points.

The fact that the sentence says a "single hull point" won't matter since they will argue that effects are additionals and not overall.

That is true.
The thing that DOES matter is the FAQ that explains that a 'single Immobilize result" does not come with a Hull Point-loss.

Kangodo wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Such as?

Hellbrutes have a 'Crazed' ability that triggers from glancing/penning them.

OK

Does losing a hull point from an imobilised result count?

How do you mean?

Does it count as not being relevant to what happens. i.e. you don't lose another hull point for being immobilised.

Interesting, so if you immobilise yourself from a dangerous terrain test do you lose a hull point or not? I can't remember what the BRB says about terrain rolls. i.e. do you suffer an immobilised result only without a glancing hit?

You suffer an Immobilized result AND you lose a hullpoint, it has two effects.
That's because the FAQ says so.

OK.

Shot 1 - Player A claims that 2 hull points are lost in total. You deny this and point to the rule that states a single hull point is lost and an immobilised result.

No, I will point to the FAQ that says the Immobilize itself does not cause a hullpoint-loss.

Shoot on immobilised vehicle with a grav gun and you roll a 6

1) Do you get two hull points lost since an immobilised result converts to a hull point lost

2) Do you lose one hull point because only a "single hull point" is lost in the transaction of the rule.

Option 1 there is literally no other way to read the rules. The single hull point means exactly that you lose 1 hull point AND suffer an immobilised result, if you're already immobilised that means an additional hull point. Thus it reads "you lose a single hull point and an additional hull point" how you could get anything other than the loss of 2 hull points from that sentence I can't even begin to fathom.

Also remember with the FAQ you quoted the grav weapons would do 2 hull points on the first 6 and 3 on all subsequent hits.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Spoiler:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

If you're not applying the second Immobilized result you're not reading it as written. What does the BRB tell us happens to Immobilized vehicles that become Immobilized again?

FAQ wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

Is grav a glancing hit? No. No hull point loss for excessive Immobilized results.

Is grav a penetrating hit? No. No hull point loss for excessive Immobilized results.

Is grav an effect that specifies that a hull point is lost? Well, yes. But after you've applied the normal damage from grav, you've already lost your hull point, you're done. The FAQ merely tells us that it is possible to lose hull points through effects that aren't defined as glancing or penetrating hits as long as they specifically call for hull point removal. But the way the majority here reads it, you're basically applying the same hull point loss twice, going against both RAI and RAW, which says that a grav hit removes a single hull point. If it said immobilized plus and additional hull point, you might have had a case. But after you're done applying damage and you're stripped two hull points when the rule says you strip a single one, you're doing something wrong.

To be honest I agree with you here. The FAQ does state that you do not necessarily lose a hull point for an immobilization result.

100% correct. The FAQ tells us that just being immobilized does not NECESSARILY cause a vehicle to loose a hull point. But this is not the same as saying the being immobilized can NEVER cause a vehicle to loose as hull point. The FAQ tells us there needs to be a reason for the hull point loss, either because of a glancing or penetrating hit OR because of some specific effect. Being Immobilized a second time IS a specific effect. The FAQ is telling you that a second immobilized result WILL cause a vehicle to loose a hull point even if it is not the result of a glancing or penetrating hit.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Spoiler:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I read it like it's written (for a change): you're immobilized and lose a single hull point. Not two. Two is not single.

If you're not applying the second Immobilized result you're not reading it as written. What does the BRB tell us happens to Immobilized vehicles that become Immobilized again?

FAQ wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

Is grav a glancing hit? No. No hull point loss for excessive Immobilized results.

Is grav a penetrating hit? No. No hull point loss for excessive Immobilized results.

Is grav an effect that specifies that a hull point is lost? Well, yes. But after you've applied the normal damage from grav, you've already lost your hull point, you're done. The FAQ merely tells us that it is possible to lose hull points through effects that aren't defined as glancing or penetrating hits as long as they specifically call for hull point removal. But the way the majority here reads it, you're basically applying the same hull point loss twice, going against both RAI and RAW, which says that a grav hit removes a single hull point. If it said immobilized plus and additional hull point, you might have had a case. But after you're done applying damage and you're stripped two hull points when the rule says you strip a single one, you're doing something wrong.

To be honest I agree with you here. The FAQ does state that you do not necessarily lose a hull point for an immobilization result.

100% correct. The FAQ tells us that just being immobilized does not NECESSARILY cause a vehicle to loose a hull point. But this is not the same as saying the being immobilized can NEVER cause a vehicle to loose as hull point. The FAQ tells us there needs to be a reason for the hull point loss, either because of a glancing or penetrating hit OR because of some specific effect. Being Immobilized a second time IS a specific effect. The FAQ is telling you that a second immobilized result WILL cause a vehicle to loose a hull point even if it is not the result of a glancing or penetrating hit.

This.

 DarthOvious wrote:

1) Do you get two hull points lost since an immobilised result converts to a hull point lost

2) Do you lose one hull point because only a "single hull point" is lost in the transaction of the rule.

#1

The grave gun only ever directly causes one HP loss per 6. The immobilize effect can also cause a HP loss but that is not limited by the rules for the grav gun. One effect triggering another does not mean the second is limited by the first unless stated.

OK fair enough. 3 HPs lost it is. I still think the way the rule is worded is completely stupid though. If it just said "glancing hit & an immobilised result" then I don't think anybody would have even questioned it in the first place.

 DarthOvious wrote:
OK fair enough. 3 HPs lost it is. I still think the way the rule is worded is completely stupid though. If it just said "glancing hit & an immobilised result" then I don't think anybody would have even questioned it in the first place.

If it was worded like that then people would be arguing that cover saves would remove the immobilized result because you passed your save. This weapon is different because it does 2 things for damage with one roll and there are not many (any?) weapons that do similar things.

OK fair enough. 3 HPs lost it is. I still think the way the rule is worded is completely stupid though. If it just said "glancing hit & an immobilised result" then I don't think anybody would have even questioned it in the first place.

I have to disagree with this strongly. The first few pages of arguments had nothing to do with the "single hull point" wording and that wording is about as clear as they could have made it.

Certain effects are triggered by penetrating hits that they clearly didn't want this weapon to trigger i.e. serpent shields, quantum shielding. Hence they moved away from that language. I prefer the glancing hit language as that helps with the cover save argument (though there would be arguments about whether the immobilised result would be ignored by a cover save).

Some times the issue isn't poor GW wording it is people scared of new rules or trying to easter egg hunt. The grav guns are worded very clearly (except for shooting at units with multiple different saves) some people just want them to be worse hence this argument whilst others are easter egg hunting hence the cover save one.

Seeing that the "no cover saves" is probably against their intentions, that would have been better.

 Mulletdude wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
OK fair enough. 3 HPs lost it is. I still think the way the rule is worded is completely stupid though. If it just said "glancing hit & an immobilised result" then I don't think anybody would have even questioned it in the first place.

If it was worded like that then people would be arguing that cover saves would remove the immobilized result because you passed your save. This weapon is different because it does 2 things for damage with one roll and there are not many (any?) weapons that do similar things.

I'm not even going to go into the ignoring cover thing. I still think its worded poorly. They do have the ignore cover profile on the weapon listing as well if they wanted to do that. If they really wanted to say that only one effect ignored cover then they should have made it clear using a sentence of some sort. Instead people are arguing about the effects of this gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

OK fair enough. 3 HPs lost it is. I still think the way the rule is worded is completely stupid though. If it just said "glancing hit & an immobilised result" then I don't think anybody would have even questioned it in the first place.

I have to disagree with this strongly. The first few pages of arguments had nothing to do with the "single hull point" wording and that wording is about as clear as they could have made it.

Well I didn't respond in the fir few pages and I also believe that Lord Blackfang mentioned it.

Certain effects are triggered by penetrating hits that they clearly didn't want this weapon to trigger i.e. serpent shields, quantum shielding. Hence they moved away from that language. I prefer the glancing hit language as that helps with the cover save argument (though there would be arguments about whether the immobilised result would be ignored by a cover save).

Yes, but by circumnavigating the rule mechanics it is necessary to explain in detail what the new rule is supposed to be doing. It wouldn't be the first time they put a note on a rule or clarrified further in a rule book. The fact that people are arguing over it in the first place shows they didn't make their intentions with this rule clear enough to begin with.

Some times the issue isn't poor GW wording it is people scared of new rules or trying to easter egg hunt. The grav guns are worded very clearly (except for shooting at units with multiple different saves) some people just want them to be worse hence this argument whilst others are easter egg hunting hence the cover save one.

Trust me, its poor wording. This rule is going to cause nothing but arguments and this thread already proves it. All they had to do was add a note stating the intention of the rule. i.e. "Please note that the immobilised result & the loss of a hull point are different effects. If the vehicle is already immobilised it suffers an additional gancing hit instead".

How simple is that? One sentence placed on top of a book that is already over a hundread pages big.

Oh please!
Gets hot! has caused plenty of arguments and it's not changed much in 20 years.
This is a new rule and people need to get their heads around it(until any FAQs change how it works) and that's all that this is.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Oh please!
Gets hot! has caused plenty of arguments and it's not changed much in 20 years.
This is a new rule and people need to get their heads around it(until any FAQs change how it works) and that's all that this is.

I will agree to that. Its not constructive to keep arguing about little things like this. Lets just move on. People will just need to deal with it when it comes up.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Oh please!
Gets hot! has caused plenty of arguments and it's not changed much in 20 years.
This is a new rule and people need to get their heads around it(until any FAQs change how it works) and that's all that this is.

OK, this has piqued my interest. What sort of arguments has Gets Hot caused (other than LOS!) over the years?

The question of how does it work with 2 plasmaguns and where the wound goes and how is it allocated in 5th ed. There were threads that went on for like 6 pages easily and it was brought up every few months.
IIRC this was the last of them. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/436324.page

Every time some one brings up the single hull point wording I'm going to point out that a penetrating result says the same thing 1 hull point and damage result.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZgsijweGKo

they confirm it apparantly at the start of the video 4mins in.

I didn't know that the GW guys that wrote the codex and the rule books make YouTube videos where they issue official rulings...

 d-usa wrote:
I didn't know that the GW guys that wrote the codex and the rule books make YouTube videos where they issue official rulings...

Did I say it was offical? But thanks for stopping by just to make a useless addition to the thread.

They do confirm stuff thats in the errata. But I guess they aint trying to squeeze out stuff for an advantage just because of the way the rules are written. 4.19 they explain it.

They do some nice videos, but they get so many rules wrong at times.

You posted in a 5 day old thread, a post that is nothing except 2 guys in a YouTube video talking about what they think the rules say, adding nothing to this thread that hasn't been said in the previous 6 pages, and then post like these random guys are an official "confirmation".

And after posting a useless addition of a YouTube video you complain about my useless addition because I pointed out that all you did was post a second-hand "I think that is what the rules say" video.

But keep on trucking.

 grendel083 wrote:
They do some nice videos, but they get so many rules wrong at times.

Case and point, they state that a wound saved by FnP is still an unsaved wound.

 Bausk wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
They do some nice videos, but they get so many rules wrong at times.

Case and point, they state that a wound saved by FnP is still an unsaved wound.

Oh dear... The FNP rules clearly say it counts as saved.

Edit, NM

 Lutharr101 wrote:
Did I say it was offical? But thanks for stopping by just to make a useless addition to the thread.
They do confirm stuff thats in the errata. But I guess they aint trying to squeeze out stuff for an advantage just because of the way the rules are written. 4.19 they explain it.

His post is not nearly as useless as a 'confirmation by two random guys who know nothing about the rules'.

Squeeze out stuff for advantage?
So if I demand that my Boltgun fires two shots at 12", that is squeezing out advantage?
When I want my Jump Packs to move 12", that is squeezing out for advantage?
No, that is following the rules as they are! Just like this.

We're not attacking you because you want to deny your opponent stuff they are clearly allowed.
So please don't attack other people on this forum.

I am of the opinion that the 2nd immobilized result does not take the 3rd hull point. Reason being that you are not rolling on the vehicle damage chart, you are rolling a d6 instead.

ie. The rule for grav weapons, specifically states that you do not roll on the vehicle damage chart. As this is where the addititional hull point is lost, that rule cannot apply.

Admittedly, I havn't trawled through 5 pages of bickering.

Belly wrote:
I am of the opinion that the 2nd immobilized result does not take the 3rd hull point. Reason being that you are not rolling on the vehicle damage chart, you are rolling a d6 instead.

ie. The rule for grav weapons, specifically states that you do not roll on the vehicle damage chart. As this is where the addititional hull point is lost, that rule cannot apply.

Admittedly, I havn't trawled through 5 pages of bickering.

Without referencing the Vehicle Damage chart what does an Immobolised result do?

Belly wrote:
I am of the opinion that the 2nd immobilized result does not take the 3rd hull point. Reason being that you are not rolling on the vehicle damage chart, you are rolling a d6 instead.

ie. The rule for grav weapons, specifically states that you do not roll on the vehicle damage chart. As this is where the addititional hull point is lost, that rule cannot apply.

Admittedly, I havn't trawled through 5 pages of bickering.

So basically an opinion not backed by a single rule. Awesome.

 Happyjew wrote:

Belly wrote:
I am of the opinion that the 2nd immobilized result does not take the 3rd hull point. Reason being that you are not rolling on the vehicle damage chart, you are rolling a d6 instead.

ie. The rule for grav weapons, specifically states that you do not roll on the vehicle damage chart. As this is where the addititional hull point is lost, that rule cannot apply.

Admittedly, I havn't trawled through 5 pages of bickering.

Without referencing the Vehicle Damage chart what does an Immobolised result do?

As I read qrhe rules Immobilizing a vehicle prevents it from moving, like a Drop Pod. Without using the Vehicle Damage Chart by scoring a Penetrating hit, the additional wording about taking a Hull Point is supposed to reinforce that, unlike a Drop Pod, the grav-weapon can inflict a single HP hit. Fortunately, we don't see too many right now, so when an FAQ hits, this will be a moot discussion.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
They do some nice videos, but they get so many rules wrong at times.

Case and point, they state that a wound saved by FnP is still an unsaved wound.

Oh dear... The FNP rules clearly say it counts as saved.

Yeah these guys are really one of the worst sources for a rules debate. And allt hat noise about no one knowing what concussive does, the hell? Like they don't use thunder hammers or power mauls.

 Happyjew wrote:

Belly wrote:
I am of the opinion that the 2nd immobilized result does not take the 3rd hull point. Reason being that you are not rolling on the vehicle damage chart, you are rolling a d6 instead.

ie. The rule for grav weapons, specifically states that you do not roll on the vehicle damage chart. As this is where the addititional hull point is lost, that rule cannot apply.

Admittedly, I havn't trawled through 5 pages of bickering.

Without referencing the Vehicle Damage chart what does an Immobolised result do?

I've done some more reading on the debate, and yeah, I conceed that it would be an additional HP loss. The coversave thing is a whole other issue though

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Belly wrote:
I am of the opinion that the 2nd immobilized result does not take the 3rd hull point. Reason being that you are not rolling on the vehicle damage chart, you are rolling a d6 instead.

ie. The rule for grav weapons, specifically states that you do not roll on the vehicle damage chart. As this is where the addititional hull point is lost, that rule cannot apply.

Admittedly, I havn't trawled through 5 pages of bickering.

Without referencing the Vehicle Damage chart what does an Immobolised result do?

As I read qrhe rules Immobilizing a vehicle prevents it from moving, like a Drop Pod. Without using the Vehicle Damage Chart by scoring a Penetrating hit, the additional wording about taking a Hull Point is supposed to reinforce that, unlike a Drop Pod, the grav-weapon can inflict a single HP hit. Fortunately, we don't see too many right now, so when an FAQ hits, this will be a moot discussion.

They already FAQ'd immobilzations. This form of immob comes from a damage effect, as from the hull point loss caused, so it counts. The drop pod does not come from a damage effect, so it does not as per the FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Belly wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Belly wrote:
I am of the opinion that the 2nd immobilized result does not take the 3rd hull point. Reason being that you are not rolling on the vehicle damage chart, you are rolling a d6 instead.

ie. The rule for grav weapons, specifically states that you do not roll on the vehicle damage chart. As this is where the addititional hull point is lost, that rule cannot apply.

Admittedly, I havn't trawled through 5 pages of bickering.

Without referencing the Vehicle Damage chart what does an Immobolised result do?

I've done some more reading on the debate, and yeah, I conceed that it would be an additional HP loss. The coversave thing is a whole other issue though

The RAI/HWYPI would be cover saves allowed, but yes the ambiguity of the vehicle save rules coupled with the grav special rule makes it RAW no saves.

How does the FAQ referring to pg 74 even come close to saying sufdering the effect of Immobilzation causes a hull point loss? I am on a Kindle, so I can't coopy and paste, but is specifically says it does not take off a hull point unless otherwise specified. So one grav hit = Immobilized and a total of one hull point lost.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
How does the FAQ referring to pg 74 even come close to saying sufdering the effect of Immobilzation causes a hull point loss? I am on a Kindle, so I can't coopy and paste, but is specifically says it does not take off a hull point unless otherwise specified. So one grav hit = Immobilized and a total of one hull point lost.

Yes that FAQ means the first grav hit = 1HP + immobilised result.

2nd Grav hit = 1hp + additional HP due to immobilised on an already immobilised vehicle as per the immobilised result rules.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
How does the FAQ referring to pg 74 even come close to saying sufdering the effect of Immobilzation causes a hull point loss? I am on a Kindle, so I can't coopy and paste, but is specifically says it does not take off a hull point unless otherwise specified. So one grav hit = Immobilized and a total of one hull point lost.

Because Grav specifies a hull point is lost, it applies. In the case of the drop pod or say even failing a DT test, no hull point is lost so it doesn't apply.

So lets say a vehicle gets hit and "grav'd" (6 result) by two grav shots. The first immobs and causes a hp loss as per the grav rule. The second causes an additional HP loss from a second immob and a single hp loss. totaling in 3 Hps lost.

Where as lets say the vehicle fails a DT test and becomes immob'd but does not lose a HP. It then gets grav'd, causing a HP loss from the shot and an additional HP from already being immob'd. resulting in 2 HPs lost.

Lets say its a rhino that failed a DT test, gets immob'd but does not lose a HP. Lets say the enemy misses with its grav weapons and in the rhinos following turn manages to get itself fixed as per its special rule. But in the following enemy shooting phase gets hit with a grav shot, the rhino loses a HP from the shot then becomes immob'd (not losing any additional HPs as it was not previously immob'd when it was grav'd). Remarkably the Rhino fixes itself again in its turn, only to be grav'd again in the enemy shooting phase after it again. Same result, one HP loss and immob'd but no additional HP loss as it was not immob'd when it was hit this time either. But' its only got a single HP left now.

So again, according to the FAQ, unless specified, suffering a Damage Effect doesn't also take a hull point. Grav weaponry specifically states a vehicle is Immobilized and suffers a Hull Point lost. If the Immbolizing cause a hull point loss in and of itself, wouldn't be an additional hull point? so why doesn't the rule read "additional hull point"? because each grav hit only causes one HP loss.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So again, according to the FAQ, unless specified, suffering a Damage Effect doesn't also take a hull point. Grav weaponry specifically states a vehicle is Immobilized and suffers a Hull Point lost. If the Immbolizing cause a hull point loss in and of itself, wouldn't be an additional hull point? so why doesn't the rule read "additional hull point"? because each grav hit only causes one HP loss.

The additional HP loss comes from the second (and third and onwards) Immob, not the grav shot itself. The FAQ just distiguishes between effects and effects with HP loss.

Simply put;

A mobile vehicle will only take a single HP loss and immob from a grav shot. (1HP)

A vehicle that is already immob'd (even if it was from the previous shot from the same firing unit) will take a single HP loss and an additional HP loss from the additional immob caused by grav. (2 HPs)

 Bausk wrote:
or say even failing a DT test, no hull point is lost so it doesn't apply.

Just thought I should point out, from the official BRB FAQ:

Page 71
– Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from
the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
or say even failing a DT test, no hull point is lost so it doesn't apply.

Just thought I should point out, from the official BRB FAQ:

Page 71
– Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from
the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.

Well there you go, add DT to the list too.

that is how i would allow people to do it as a second immobilised result takes away another HP so since a 6 is an immobilised result +1HP that means a second six would get 2 HP

 Bausk wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
How does the FAQ referring to pg 74 even come close to saying sufdering the effect of Immobilzation causes a hull point loss? I am on a Kindle, so I can't coopy and paste, but is specifically says it does not take off a hull point unless otherwise specified. So one grav hit = Immobilized and a total of one hull point lost.

Because Grav specifies a hull point is lost, it applies. In the case of the drop pod or say even failing a DT test, no hull point is lost so it doesn't apply.

I think this is wrong. The '2nd' hull point loss has nothing to do with gravitation causing a hull point loss. The FAQ tells us that a vehicle only looses a hull point if "it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost." Its the 'some other effect' part that is important here. 'Immobilised' from pg74 is some other effect that specifies a hull point is lost if the effect is applied to an already immobilized vehicle.

Immobilizing and already immobilized vehicle will always cause one more hull point then normal to be lost, even if what is normally lost is zero hull points.

Drop Pods do not loose a hull point when they land becouse they did not suffer a Glancing or Penetrating hit nor were they already immobilized when the immobilized effect is applied to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

Page 71
– Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from
the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.

Now I am a bit confused, Why would they ever loose a hull point for failing a DT test? They did not suffer a glancing or penetrating hit, nor were they immobilized before failing the test (because to take the test you have to move) and just being immobilized for the 1st time does not specify a hull point loss. This errata seems to be directly in contradiction with the FAQ unless you can be required to take two simultaneous DT tests or an immobilized vehicle can attempt to move through broken terrain.

Kangodo wrote:

 Lutharr101 wrote:
Did I say it was offical? But thanks for stopping by just to make a useless addition to the thread.
They do confirm stuff thats in the errata. But I guess they aint trying to squeeze out stuff for an advantage just because of the way the rules are written. 4.19 they explain it.

His post is not nearly as useless as a 'confirmation by two random guys who know nothing about the rules'.

Squeeze out stuff for advantage?
So if I demand that my Boltgun fires two shots at 12", that is squeezing out advantage?
When I want my Jump Packs to move 12", that is squeezing out for advantage?
No, that is following the rules as they are! Just like this.

We're not attacking you because you want to deny your opponent stuff they are clearly allowed.
So please don't attack other people on this forum.

try reading what i put. I very clearly put APPRANTLY, but that escapes notice cos folks wanna do the whole internet douche thing. I posted it as i assumed they had read it properly and were trying to help the community. If someone wants to correct that then feel free to do so. But just posting a smart arse reply aint even trying to help its just someone being a prat.

You know that the post states "edited 1 time", and that the "apprantly" was not originally in the post...

 d-usa wrote:
You know that the post states "edited 1 time", and that the "apprantly" was not originally in the post...

it was edited 4 minutes before any one replied to it. I also don't know how you could tell what content was changed as part of the edit.

 d-usa wrote:
You know that the post states "edited 1 time", and that the "apprantly" was not originally in the post...

Actually as someone else noted it was edited before anyone else even responded so nice try.

And the edited part was me adding the rough time they made the statement so people could fast forward to the relevant part.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Page 71
– Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from
the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.

Now I am a bit confused, Why would they ever loose a hull point for failing a DT test? They did not suffer a glancing or penetrating hit, nor were they immobilized before failing the test (because to take the test you have to move) and just being immobilized for the 1st time does not specify a hull point loss. This errata seems to be directly in contradiction with the FAQ unless you can be required to take two simultaneous DT tests or an immobilized vehicle can attempt to move through broken terrain.

There are two rules.
1) Failed Dangerous Terrain causes Immobilisation and 1 HP lost.
Because of this people were claiming that Drop Pods automatically loss 1 HP upon arrival, since the errata effectively said that damage results cause lost hull points. That is when GW released the following:
2) If a vehicle suffers a damage result it does not lose a HP unless the special rule specifically says it does.
Due to this you would still lose a HP from dangerous terrain (it specifies you do), but not from drop pods being immobile.
Graviton weapons specify Immobilise and 1 HP lost. Therefore, there can be no argument that you do not lose a HP. Immobilisation also specifies you lose 1 HP if already immobilised. Again, there is the specification that you lose a HP.

It's pretty clear that there isn't any valid point to cancel out the additional hull point loss from the second imobilized result in the rulebook.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Page 71
– Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from
the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”.

Now I am a bit confused, Why would they ever loose a hull point for failing a DT test? They did not suffer a glancing or penetrating hit, nor were they immobilized before failing the test (because to take the test you have to move) and just being immobilized for the 1st time does not specify a hull point loss. This errata seems to be directly in contradiction with the FAQ unless you can be required to take two simultaneous DT tests or an immobilized vehicle can attempt to move through broken terrain.

There are two rules.
1) Failed Dangerous Terrain causes Immobilisation and 1 HP lost.
Because of this people were claiming that Drop Pods automatically loss 1 HP upon arrival, since the errata effectively said that damage results cause lost hull points. That is when GW released the following:
2) If a vehicle suffers a damage result it does not lose a HP unless the special rule specifically says it does.
Due to this you would still lose a HP from dangerous terrain (it specifies you do), but not from drop pods being immobile.
Graviton weapons specify Immobilise and 1 HP lost. Therefore, there can be no argument that you do not lose a HP. Immobilisation also specifies you lose 1 HP if already immobilised. Again, there is the specification that you lose a HP.

Where in the Book/Errata is the 1st one?

“A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”

They way they worded this does not mean a failed Dangerous Terrain causes Immobilisation and 1 HP lost.. It means it causes Immobilisation and that Immobilisation includes loosing a hull point. Very odd.