Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 15:40:28


Post by: ian_destiny


If my tank is obscured, can I take cover saves against the 6 rolled by Grav weapon ?
And can I take invulnerable save against grav weapon?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 15:46:01


Post by: rigeld2


ian_destiny wrote:
If my tank is obscured, can I take cover saves against the 6 rolled by Grav weapon ?
And can I take invulnerable save against grav weapon?

RAW, no.
How many people play it: Yes.
HIWPI: Cover no, invul yes. I don't have a rule basis for the distinction.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 15:54:57


Post by: doktor_g


What about a KFF? Still no cover? Never encountered this.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 15:55:48


Post by: rigeld2


 doktor_g wrote:
What about a KFF? Still no cover? Never encountered this.

RAW or HIWPI?
Either way, I'd be consistent with my post.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 15:56:02


Post by: Quanar


KFF (currently) gives a cover save, which would be treated in exactly the same way as the cover save for being obscured.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 16:00:51


Post by: ian_destiny


rigeld2 wrote:
ian_destiny wrote:
If my tank is obscured, can I take cover saves against the 6 rolled by Grav weapon ?
And can I take invulnerable save against grav weapon?

RAW, no.
How many people play it: Yes.
HIWPI: Cover no, invul yes. I don't have a rule basis for the distinction.


Why?
My friend said grav weapons dont have the "ignore cover" special rule.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 16:01:55


Post by: danny1995


Vehicles can't because they never take a glancing or penetrating hit, they just suffer the result of immobilized and lose a hull point.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 16:07:15


Post by: DaKKaLAnce


Why cant you take a cover save against a Grav weapon?



Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 16:08:21


Post by: rigeld2


DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Why cant you take a cover save against a Grav weapon?

When are you allowed to take cover saves?
When you take a Penetrating/Glancing Hit.
Do Grav weapons cause Penetrating or Glancing Hits?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 16:11:01


Post by: DaKKaLAnce


Well i dont have the rules on me, but i thought a roll of 6 is an automatic glancing? ( I dont play against Grav guns very much)


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 16:14:51


Post by: DeathReaper


DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Well i dont have the rules on me, but i thought a roll of 6 is an automatic glancing? ( I dont play against Grav guns very much)

No, the roll of a 6 causes an immobilized result and a single hull point loss.

It does not give the vehicle a glancing hit.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 16:29:51


Post by: DaKKaLAnce


 DeathReaper wrote:
DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Well i dont have the rules on me, but i thought a roll of 6 is an automatic glancing? ( I dont play against Grav guns very much)

No, the roll of a 6 causes an immobilized result and a single hull point loss.

It does not give the vehicle a glancing hit.


Ok thank you for the clarification


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 16:37:34


Post by: phatonic


But guys... You seem to forget imobilise is a effect from the penetration chart would it not be a pen then? *gets popcorn*


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 16:45:30


Post by: danny1995


Nope, because it skips the roll on the penetration chart.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 17:20:26


Post by: BarBoBot


Yes, RAW means vehicles get no saves.

I have yet to meet someone IRL who plays it that way.

If your going to hug RAW so tightly, then I guess models with no eyes can't shoot either....

Other than GW's poor writing, I see no reason why grav should affect vehicles any differently that infantry...

A vehicle that fails a dangerous terrain roll gets immobilized with the exact same wording as grav, and the FaQ tells us that you still get a invulnerable save.... Even without a glance or pen.



Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 17:38:15


Post by: sirlynchmob


Grav weapons don't ignore cover.
models get a cover save against it.
Vehicles take cover saves like a model against wounds.
Vehicles get a cover save as well.




Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 18:25:39


Post by: some bloke


think of this comparison:

A battlewagon with a kustom forcefield rolls onto a rock and rolls a "1" for difficult terrain, and is immobilised. does it get a cover save? no, because there are no glancing or penetrating hits to be saved.

A grav weapon rolls a "6" to damage a vehicle. the vehicle suffers an immobilised result & a hullpoint loss. does it get a cover save? no, because there are no glancing or penetrating hits to be saved.

This isn't the same as a wound, it's an effect. like a psychic power that reduces your models toughness, you don't get a cover save against that.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 18:37:21


Post by: sirlynchmob


 some bloke wrote:
think of this comparison:

A battlewagon with a kustom forcefield rolls onto a rock and rolls a "1" for difficult terrain, and is immobilised. does it get a cover save? no, because there are no glancing or penetrating hits to be saved.

A grav weapon rolls a "6" to damage a vehicle. the vehicle suffers an immobilised result & a hullpoint loss. does it get a cover save? no, because there are no glancing or penetrating hits to be saved.

This isn't the same as a wound, it's an effect. like a psychic power that reduces your models toughness, you don't get a cover save against that.


but dangerous terrain wounds ignore cover. so neither models, nor vehicles get a cover save from those wounds.

grav weapons allow saves for models


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 18:37:35


Post by: GeneralCael


According to the current ETC-faq, you can't take neither cover nor Invul saves against grav weapons. Idiocy, imo, but there you have it.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 18:39:09


Post by: sirlynchmob


GeneralCael wrote:
According to the current ETC-faq, you can't take neither cover nor Invul saves against grav weapons. Idiocy, imo, but there you have it.


well it's not an official FAQ, but at least they were consistent in their rulings.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 18:46:08


Post by: Arbiter


Do eldar get Titan holofields from grav weapons? Are Titans affected by grav weapons?

Shame GW doesn't just put the ignores cover special rule. Come on, they already knew buffmanders were going there.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 18:49:44


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Arbiter wrote:
Do eldar get Titan holofields from grav weapons? Are Titans affected by grav weapons?

Shame GW doesn't just put the ignores cover special rule. Come on, they already knew buffmanders were going there.

The Holofield is basically a save versus to hit rolls.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 18:50:25


Post by: Happyjew


rigeld2 wrote:
ian_destiny wrote:
If my tank is obscured, can I take cover saves against the 6 rolled by Grav weapon ?
And can I take invulnerable save against grav weapon?

RAW, no.
How many people play it: Yes.
HIWPI: Cover no, invul yes. I don't have a rule basis for the distinction.


I'm curious, why no for cover, yes for invuln? Especially since invulnerable saves (like cover saves) can only be taken against glances/pens.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 18:52:42


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
ian_destiny wrote:
If my tank is obscured, can I take cover saves against the 6 rolled by Grav weapon ?
And can I take invulnerable save against grav weapon?

RAW, no.
How many people play it: Yes.
HIWPI: Cover no, invul yes. I don't have a rule basis for the distinction.


I'm curious, why no for cover, yes for invuln? Especially since invulnerable saves (like cover saves) can only be taken against glances/pens.

I don't have my rulebook with me at the college today but aren't vehicle cover saves phrased that vehicles get them as if they were rolling against a wound?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 18:54:22


Post by: rigeld2


 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
ian_destiny wrote:
If my tank is obscured, can I take cover saves against the 6 rolled by Grav weapon ?
And can I take invulnerable save against grav weapon?

RAW, no.
How many people play it: Yes.
HIWPI: Cover no, invul yes. I don't have a rule basis for the distinction.


I'm curious, why no for cover, yes for invuln? Especially since invulnerable saves (like cover saves) can only be taken against glances/pens.

As I said, it's not rules based.
I see cover stopping gravitic waves less than I can see some kind of shield stopping the waves. So more of a fluff based thing than anything else.
The reason it's vehicle specific is because cover for troops can represent ducking behind something, not knowing exactly where your target is, etc.
A tank isn't going to dodge behind a tree or wall.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 19:25:32


Post by: deviantduck


Fluffily, cover saves aren't just about the target dodging the shot but the firer missing his shot because of vision, movement, etc.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 19:33:18


Post by: rigeld2


 deviantduck wrote:
Fluffily, cover saves aren't just about the target dodging the shot but the firer missing his shot because of vision, movement, etc.

Correct. If it was even implied in the rules, I'd play infantry lose cover as well. Since it's not, the only thing I'm house ruling is that vehicle invul saves are allowed.
Also, firer missing his shot because of vision == not sure where your target is. If you can see half of a Land Raider, it's not hard to know where the other half is. If you can see half of a person, where's his arm at? His leg? What's being held there?
Movement == dodging...


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 20:02:58


Post by: FlingitNow


Yes you can take both cover and invuns against Grav weapons. Anyone saying that they ignore them is literally making rules up. They do bypass them RaW but anyone trying to enforce that house rule on you is cheating. Just as much as someone telling you your Hiveguard can't wound people out of LoS or that your helmeted marines can't shoot or assault or that your FMC has the as yet undefined "Relentless Smash" special rule etc etc etc.

Expect a bunch of people to get indignant about be called on cheating.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 20:31:16


Post by: liturgies of blood


Fling how is RAW a house rule? The rules don't give you the ability to take them, that's not making rules up that's fact. It probably wasn't intended but it's how it is.
You're making some crazy allegations about cheating there.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 21:21:27


Post by: FlingitNow


Because if you change the rules it is a House rule or if you are unsure of the rules and create you own solution (which coukd be the actual rule) is a house rule. Of course RaW can be house rules are you claiming RaW = The Rules? Because lots of FaQs have illustrated that RaW =/= RaI.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 21:43:02


Post by: liturgies of blood


RAW gets changed by the FAQs you know.... RAW is the rules as written. Due to the limitations of language the interpretation of rules is not set in stone and different people can read it differently because of variance in local dialect. That multiple interpretations of a rule exist doesn't change that it is the rule. Ignoring the written word and putting in your own arbitrary rule is creating a house rule, following RAW is not a house rule.

I'm saying that RAW is a valid reading of the rules and to say that someone is cheating because of that is childish.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 22:18:34


Post by: FlingitNow


RaW is the literal translation of the written text interpreted as a computer would interpret a programme. The rules are written to be interpreted this way so to interpret them that way and claim it is the rules is fallacious to say the least. RaW is not the same as RaI and making that claim is not childish. The attitude that cheating is ok if you can semantically out argue your opponent is baffling to me.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 22:26:47


Post by: liturgies of blood


The idea that someone is cheating because they play the rules on the page is baffling to me.

Your second sentence shows the problem of your point, RAI is not a universal standard and someone that says the intention is as written is just as valid. You can't call someone a cheat unless they are actually cheating.

That RAW and RAI are not always the same isn't the problem I have with your point. To say that someone is a cheater without them breaking a rule is what I call into question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you can take both cover and invuns against Grav weapons. Anyone saying that they ignore them is literally making rules up. They do bypass them RaW but anyone trying to enforce that house rule on you is cheating....

Expect a bunch of people to get indignant about be called on cheating.


It's fine to expect people to get indignant about being called a cheat without cause, it's actually defamation and in many sports the false accusation is a punishable offence. The bolded is the line I have a problem with.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 22:38:23


Post by: nwabudikemorgan


Indeed, many people might play it as a house rule that vehicles DO get saves, but RAW, the literal text, does not allow the saves, because vehicles get to take a save vs glancing and penetrating hits, and grav weapons cause neither.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 22:44:39


Post by: Johnnytorrance


This is ridiculous. If a grav weapon ignored cover then it would say it ignores cover.

I'm a space marine player and it's pretty obvious to me. If you're a vehicle obscured by an object and I shoot you with a lascannon. You can take a cover save, lascannon does not ignore cover. It doesn't state it ignores cover.

Imagine the silhouette of a tank. When you roll to hit and you score a hit. Your shot is going to hit somewhere on that silhouette. Now imagine a silhouette of a large rock in front of the tank. When the tank makes a cover save, it's basically saying, you would have scored a hit but that rock was in the way.

If a tank is behind cover and you fire a salvo of 5 and hit 3, your opponent then rolls to see if you hit the tank or the cover.

If an infantry model gets the cover save, why wouldn't a tank?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 22:49:42


Post by: liturgies of blood


Well Johnny, that's a good question.
It could be that since the armour of a model is proportional to the effect of a grav weapon the design team felt that vehicles should have no opportunity to escape it's devastating effects and that the 1/6 chance of an effect was enough.

It could also be a massive oversight in the writing of the rules but we won't know until an FAQ comes out. Until then each side is just as valid RAI and RAW is very clear.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 23:25:10


Post by: FlingitNow


It could also be a massive oversight in the writing of the rules but we won't know until an FAQ comes out. Until then each side is just as valid RAI and RAW is very clear.


Underlined is a lie as you know only one side is valid RaI. You have a process to follow when shooting the Grav weapons change one part of that process to claim the RaI is for that to then invalidate the next step for Vehicles is ludicrous.

A good basis for RaI is follow the status quo unless told differently. Are we told Grav weapons ignore cover or invunerable saves?

We all know that reading RaW simply doesn't work in this game system (Destroyer weapons, FMCs, LoS etc etc etc). Being able to understand stuff beyond the literal is fairly basic social interaction. If you're not capable of that. Well that's your look out.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/22 23:51:30


Post by: liturgies of blood


So cheating, a liar and I am incapable of basic social interation... you must be fun to play with.


RAI is an opinion based interpretation of the rules based on a personal feeling for the designers intent. That is, unless you are so arrogant to assume that you know what the design team intended. I doubt you are.



Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 03:05:22


Post by: Imperator_Class


I even hate the acronym RAI.

No one but the design teams knows exactly how something was intended, to say otherwise is arrogant.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 03:38:10


Post by: Eihnlazer


no cover from grav, raw or rai in my eyes.

I allow invuns though since there was a faq that allowed invuns againgst difficult terrain damage.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 04:12:32


Post by: Big Blind Bill


It's a TFG move to claim that they ignore cover or invulnerable saves. People state it is "RAW", yet actually come to the conclusion by reading selectively into the rules.

Nowhere in the rules does it explicitly state that grav guns ignore saves when targeting vehicles. Ergo, you get a save.

If you want a case to support this, then consider vehicles receiving an immobilized result for moving through cover.
They do not receive a penetrating or glancing hit when they become immobilized, yet can take an invulnerable save against the result (if they have one).


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 05:23:53


Post by: insaniak


 FlingitNow wrote:
RaW is the literal translation of the written text interpreted as a computer would interpret a programme. The rules are written to be interpreted this way so to interpret them that way and claim it is the rules is fallacious to say the least. RaW is not the same as RaI and making that claim is not childish. The attitude that cheating is ok if you can semantically out argue your opponent is baffling to me.

This post makes no sense. If someone reads the rules differently to how you do, they're not 'cheating' by playing the way they read the rules.

Your interpretation of how the rules should be played is no more inherently correct than anyone else's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 FlingitNow wrote:
. Being able to understand stuff beyond the literal is fairly basic social interaction. If you're not capable of that. Well that's your look out.

You need to dial down the antagonism if you wish to continue this discussion.

First and only warning for this thread.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 07:45:47


Post by: FlingitNow


This post makes no sense. If someone reads the rules differently to how you do, they're not 'cheating' by playing the way they read the rules. 

Your interpretation of how the rules should be played is no more inherently correct than anyone else's.


I'm not saying reading the rules differently to me and wishing to play that way is cheating. I've never stated my oppinion what the RaI is, is any more valid than anyone else's. What I'm saying is that we all can see the intention here it is very obvious. Not just to me but to everyone that reads the rules. Some people can then twist the clear meaning through semantic arguments and declare as that is technically correct that it is the rules and they are going to play by that advantage.

But you know all this as we've discussed it in the past which begs the question of why you misrepresented what I had stated. All I've stated is that we all know what they meant just as we all know what some one means when they ask "Can you tell me the time?" Saying a deliberately incorrect RaI interpretation is just as valid as the clearly correct one is like saying it is just as valid that the RaI of a Space Marines toughness is 10 is just as valid as it being 4...

Like a poster above I agree RaI is not a great acronym. The Rules is a clearer phrase or RaD as in Rules as Designed. At the end of the day when we play the game we agree to play a game that GW designed. We all play by what we think is the RaI in general (I've yet to meet anyone that plays helmeted marines can't shoot or that FMCs don't have smash) yet YMDC and certain communities choose to selectively ignore that fact when there's an advantageous RaW reading they can abuse. The baffling attitude is that you should try to play as close to RaW as possible rather than as close to the rules as possible.

This is a clear cut case you know I know it everyone knows it. Some people have started trying to convince themselves that the RaW is correct merely because people keep repeating it and people want their grav weapons to be better. The attitude of "that's the rules until they FaQ it" is illustrative of that. You know that the FaQ will rule only 1 way yet you feel you are entitled to get away with it until the FaQ says no.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 09:38:36


Post by: Imperator_Class


Wow, way to completely misread my statement.

Rules as designed doesn't work either, because YOU didn't design them, so you cannot claim that.

All the rest....what? The RAW isn't the RAW because it doesn't fit your interpretation? It is called Rules as Written because that is how they are written, in the book.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 10:29:36


Post by: insaniak


 FlingitNow wrote:
The baffling attitude is that you should try to play as close to RaW as possible rather than as close to the rules as possible.

What I find baffling is that after all this time you still think those are two different things.

The rules that are written in the rulebook, in the section entitled 'the rules' are the rules of the game. That's what a rulebook is.

The fact that the writer may have intended to write something completely different to what he actually did write is largely irrelevant to that. At the point that they issue an errata that corrects the rule to what he intended, what he intended becomes the rule. Until that point, the rule is what is in the book.

You are of course free to decide that the rule as written is silly, and agree with your opponent to play differently. But that doesn't make your interpretation the right one... Just the one that you choose to play by.

And no, we can't go by what makes the most sense to establish what was intended (assuming we choose to believe that what was intended matters at all...). Otherwise, we would all be ignoring the clear rules for casualty removal in favour of letting squad members pick up a fallen banner, for example.

Nor can we just assume that because a given interpretation makes the most sense that it will be how the faq will rule it. Not in an edition where the faqs have on several occasions now completely changed existing rules for no apparent reason to something less sensible (Battlements, anyone?)

You're free to assume that vehicles should get a cover save in this particular case despite the rules saying otherwise. But let's not get carried away with trying to brow-beat people into accepting what you believe to be the RAI as unarguable fact, hmm?





Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 10:42:52


Post by: Daba


I don't know if it's still relevant due to the FAQs vanishing and so on, but they had the precedent from the Dark Eldar one that you could take a save against damage that wasn't a penetrating or glancing hit (and not even in the shooting phase).

Since the shooting attack from a grav weapon is closer to a normal shooting attack than a dangerous terrain test, I would say that making it ignore cover for vehicles (but not MCs or normal units) is an easter egg.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 11:32:23


Post by: some bloke


sirlynchmob wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
think of this comparison:

A battlewagon with a kustom forcefield rolls onto a rock and rolls a "1" for difficult terrain, and is immobilised. does it get a cover save? no, because there are no glancing or penetrating hits to be saved.

A grav weapon rolls a "6" to damage a vehicle. the vehicle suffers an immobilised result & a hullpoint loss. does it get a cover save? no, because there are no glancing or penetrating hits to be saved.

This isn't the same as a wound, it's an effect. like a psychic power that reduces your models toughness, you don't get a cover save against that.


but dangerous terrain wounds ignore cover. so neither models, nor vehicles get a cover save from those wounds.

grav weapons allow saves for models


the thing is that a grav weapon doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit to a vehicle, as such there is no glancing or penetrating hit to be treated as a wound, so it can't be saved. As I said, it's an effect, like a psychic power that reduced a targets mobility, for example.

if they had said 'grav weapons cause a penetrating hit on the roll of a 6, and automatically class as rolling an immobilised result' then cover saves & invulns would be taken.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 11:46:52


Post by: Daba


But vehicles can take saves against damage that's caused by something that's not a glancing or penetrating hit by precedent.

It's also telling how it doesn't ignore non-armour saves for MCs as well, which juxtaposes oddly if it ignores vehicle cover/invulnerable saves.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 12:04:19


Post by: liturgies of blood


Daba, the problem with that FAQ is that it could only allow invulnerable saves and maybe only DA vehicles to take invul saves.

That is down to the players or TO to take a punt on until grav guns get faq'd. HIWPI is invul yes, cover no. The only time it came up was with 5 grav cannon centurions on my heldrake. The bird was dead either way.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 12:16:23


Post by: Happyjew


 liturgies of blood wrote:
Daba, the problem with that FAQ is that it could only allow invulnerable saves and maybe only DA vehicles to take invul saves.

That is down to the players or TO to take a punt on until grav guns get faq'd. HIWPI is invul yes, cover no. The only time it came up was with 5 grav cannon centurions on my heldrake. The bird was dead either way.


rigeld gave me his answer, so, now I'll ask you. What is your basis for allowing invuln saves but not cover? Both are taken against pens/glances. The only reason cover saves are not allowed against the closest similar mechanism (dangerous terrain), is because dangerous terrain specifically forbids cover saves.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 12:23:36


Post by: liturgies of blood


I play it that way for a mostly fluffy reason tbh.
More mass => greater effect kinds thing.

The grav gun doesn't cause pens or glances and the DA shield works on things that don't cause pens and glances. I think that is consistent IMO but everyone has their own view on the RAI.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 12:35:37


Post by: Daba


 liturgies of blood wrote:
Daba, the problem with that FAQ is that it could only allow invulnerable saves and maybe only DA vehicles to take invul saves.

That is down to the players or TO to take a punt on until grav guns get faq'd. HIWPI is invul yes, cover no. The only time it came up was with 5 grav cannon centurions on my heldrake. The bird was dead either way.

A save is a save.

FAQs aren't erratas. They explain how things work, not change them. In that situation, the cover save isn't eligible because it is not in a shooting phase and not against a shooting attack. A similar situation but in the shooting phase against a shooting attack would allow any relevant saves. Apart from the specified eligibility (example: against AP, non shooting and so on for different saves), all saves are otherwise treated the same and follow the same rules.

There's also no fluff reason because MCs can be larger than a vehicle, and suffer the effects more being higher density as there are no empty spaces for crew and so on.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 12:38:52


Post by: liturgies of blood


They do also change them, the issues or range and the wound pool for example.

Maybe you are right but again we need an FAQ as somethings have made wider precedent in the past while others haven't.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 12:53:15


Post by: some bloke


going by the summary section, page 427, second column line 7:

"if the vehicle is obscured or granted a saving throw from another source, it can attempt a saving throw against each glancing & penetrating hit."

saving throw, not cover saving throw, so no saves against grav weapons, as they do not cause glancing or penetrating hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as for comparing MC's with vehicles, the grav guns wound a monster like any other non-vehicle. if it were to, say, cause an underground explosion which causes the monster to move through difficult terrain in the next turn, you wouldn't get a save against it, would you?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 13:17:54


Post by: FlingitNow


What I find baffling is that after all this time you still think those are two different things. 


You find it baffling that I think RaW and RaI are two different things?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 13:23:28


Post by: Mywik


 FlingitNow wrote:
What I find baffling is that after all this time you still think those are two different things. 


You find it baffling that I think RaW and RaI are two different things?


No he means that you still seem to think the rules arent what is written in the book but something the designers wanted to write but didnt. Which leads to playing RAW isnt playing by the rules.

To be honest i also think that the designers didnt intend do let grav guns ignore cover. Still thats not what the rules they wrote say. Nothing to argue about that. If my opponent insists to play it that way - fine. In every single game where it would matter (competitive) theres a third instance to solve the problem.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 13:41:07


Post by: liturgies of blood


 FlingitNow wrote:
What I find baffling is that after all this time you still think those are two different things. 


You find it baffling that I think RaW and RaI are two different things?


No we find it baffling that you see the rules on the page as different to what the rules are in no uncertain terms. More so that you call those that play the rules on the page cheaters.
RAW are the rules, RAI is an interpretation of those rules.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 14:33:00


Post by: sirlynchmob


 some bloke wrote:
going by the summary section, page 427, second column line 7:

"if the vehicle is obscured or granted a saving throw from another source, it can attempt a saving throw against each glancing & penetrating hit."

saving throw, not cover saving throw, so no saves against grav weapons, as they do not cause glancing or penetrating hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as for comparing MC's with vehicles, the grav guns wound a monster like any other non-vehicle. if it were to, say, cause an underground explosion which causes the monster to move through difficult terrain in the next turn, you wouldn't get a save against it, would you?


pg 16, types of saving throws: saving throws = cover saves, armor saves and invuln saves.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 15:27:38


Post by: Anglacon


It never ceases to amaze me the depths people will lower themselves to, just to eek out a perceived advantage for themselves.
Of course vehicles get saves from grav weapons. The precedent was set in the DE FAQ. Period. Any further arguing is stretching the rules to the breaking point just to make their list a tad better. That someone thought of this loophole (thats right, a loophole!) at all speaks volumes. If they wanted grav guns to ignore ALL COVER AND INVUL saves, they would have said so.
What is laughable, is that most times, the people so vehement and demanding on being a rules lawyer and stretching the rules to their advantage are no good at the game, and it doesn't help them at all in the long run.
And heaven help you if you bring up a fuzzy rule that goes against them! Then see how quickly they start screaming RAI not RAW!

Just my observation on some gamers in general, and not directed to any person here. I just couldn't believe what I was reading.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 15:39:23


Post by: Happyjew


 Anglacon wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me the depths people will lower themselves to, just to eek out a perceived advantage for themselves.
Of course vehicles get saves from grav weapons. The precedent was set in the DE FAQ. Period. Any further arguing is stretching the rules to the breaking point just to make their list a tad better. That someone thought of this loophole (thats right, a loophole!) at all speaks volumes. If they wanted grav guns to ignore ALL COVER AND INVUL saves, they would have said so.
What is laughable, is that most times, the people so vehement and demanding on being a rules lawyer and stretching the rules to their advantage are no good at the game, and it doesn't help them at all in the long run.
And heaven help you if you bring up a fuzzy rule that goes against them! Then see how quickly they start screaming RAI not RAW!

Just my observation on some gamers in general, and not directed to any person here. I just couldn't believe what I was reading.


No, the precedent set forth from the DE FAQ is for Invulnerable saves.

It can be extrapolated (I really hope I used that word correctly), that since grav weapons function similarly to Dangerous Terrain, and unlike Dangerous Terrain grav weapons do not mention ignoring cover saves, they would in fact allow cover saves.

Unfortunately this is all speculation, and people denying saves are in the right. I do disagree with someone allowing an invuln save but not cover saves.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 15:46:45


Post by: rigeld2


 Anglacon wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me the depths people will lower themselves to, just to eek out a perceived advantage for themselves.
Of course vehicles get saves from grav weapons. The precedent was set in the DE FAQ. Period. Any further arguing is stretching the rules to the breaking point just to make their list a tad better. That someone thought of this loophole (thats right, a loophole!) at all speaks volumes. If they wanted grav guns to ignore ALL COVER AND INVUL saves, they would have said so.
What is laughable, is that most times, the people so vehement and demanding on being a rules lawyer and stretching the rules to their advantage are no good at the game, and it doesn't help them at all in the long run.
And heaven help you if you bring up a fuzzy rule that goes against them! Then see how quickly they start screaming RAI not RAW!

Just my observation on some gamers in general, and not directed to any person here. I just couldn't believe what I was reading.

Hi. I'm a Nid player. Are Grav guns in my codex? Nope. Do I have vehicles? Nope.
So I have literally no dog in this fight. I'm eeking out no advantage. Despite your statement to the contrary, your post is directed to people here and it's uninformed and offensive.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 16:03:32


Post by: Bojazz


So as everyone can see this is a highly debated topic. Instead of offering more rules interpretations, I offer some information of how tournaments and other forums have ruled it, for comparison.
Can Cover/Invulns be taken against Grav shots?
Bay Open Area Tournament Yes.
40kGlobal No.
Astronomican RAW No. RAI Yes.
40kGT ETC FAQ No.
Svenka40k (Swedish tournaments) Yes.
Adepticon Tournament Yes.
Feast Of Blades Tournament Yes


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 16:15:42


Post by: Anglacon


rigeld2 wrote:
Despite your statement to the contrary, your post is directed to people here and it's uninformed and offensive.

Sadly, no. Despite your wrong assumption, my statement was not directed at anyone here at all. I stated it was not, so it is not.
That being said, if you were offended by a differing opinion that was not directed at you in any way, you are either reading WAY too much into things, or you really need to grow thicker skin.

And uninformed? Really? Uninformed?
Are all contrary positions to yours uninformed or just mine? I have been in this game for over 15 years, so I think I am quite well informed on most aspects of the game. I may be overstepping, but I feel my thoughts on the matter are just as good as yours, if not better.

So, please understand it was not my intention to make you feel all offended, but if you were, it is on you, not me.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 16:26:34


Post by: rigeld2


 Anglacon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Despite your statement to the contrary, your post is directed to people here and it's uninformed and offensive.

Sadly, no. Despite your wrong assumption, my statement was not directed at anyone here at all. I stated it was not, so it is not.
That being said, if you were offended by a differing opinion that was not directed at you in any way, you are either reading WAY too much into things, or you really need to grow thicker skin.

By posting in this thread, you're addressing people participating in it. Simple fact.
Saying "I'm not addressing this to anyone in particular" while describing specific people, you are in fact addressing them.

I'm not addressing anyone in particular, but people who's nicks start with A are just rude.

And uninformed? Really? Uninformed?
Are all contrary positions to yours uninformed or just mine? I have been in this game for over 15 years, so I think I am quite well informed on most aspects of the game. I may be overstepping, but I feel my thoughts on the matter are just as good as yours, if not better.

Considering you said - as an absolute - that anyone advocating what the rules said was just looking for an advantage, and I advocate for what the rules say and I can gain no demonstrable advantage, yes I'd consider that uninformed.

So, please understand it was not my intention to make you feel all offended, but if you were, it is on you, not me.

Reported. Remember to be polite on this site please.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 16:55:08


Post by: BarBoBot


Reported for saying he didnt mean to offend you... Yeah... Perhaps the thin skin comment was accurate.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:07:00


Post by: Happyjew


 BarBoBot wrote:
Reported for saying he didnt mean to offend you... Yeah... Perhaps the thin skin comment was accurate.


No, Reported for saying it was rigeld's fault that rigeld was offended.

For example, how would you feel if I said that people whose nickname consists of three upper case B's are idiots, and if you're offended it's your fault?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:07:34


Post by: Anglacon


BarBoBot: I was going to say that, but was worried I would be reported yet again.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:08:26


Post by: SJPhillyVT


They don't cause a glance or pen so Vehicles can't take saves against them. It's very straightforward. People only say otherwise because they wish they could take saves.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:11:59


Post by: Happyjew


SJPhillyVT wrote:
They don't cause a glance or pen so Vehicles can't take saves against them. It's very straightforward. People only say otherwise because they wish they could take saves.


And what saves are Tyranid players looking to garner?

I agree with rigeld, RAW, I disagree on HIWPI, but as neither of us play SM (he plays Nids, I play Nids and Eldar) on the off chance we ever played against each other it wouldn't come up.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:19:58


Post by: Anglacon


 Happyjew wrote:


For example, how would you feel if I said that people whose nickname consists of three upper case B's are idiots, and if you're offended it's your fault?


See, this is what I am talking about.
Besides that being rather specific, which i wasn't, I think he should NOT be offended. Heck, you can come out and say "Hey, Anglacon, you're a blithering idiot!" and I would not be offended.
I would laugh.
You don't know me, I don't know you, why should I or anyone else care what you think.
Why should anyone care what I think? Am I that important?

I stated the rules as a fact as I interpret them. Others may disagree. Those that do, I feel may be stretching for advantage. Who the heck cares?

Good god, it is like walking on eggshells around here.

And the truth of the matter is, I was reported for not being "Polite".
On that, i disagree. I was very polite. He may not have agreed with what I said, but the fact Is I was reported for not being polite when i said he may be taking things too personally.



Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:24:18


Post by: BarBoBot


If saying "I didnt mean to offend, but if I did its you, not me" ruffles feathers so quickly, you wouldn't last a second around most of the people I hang with.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:26:50


Post by: rigeld2


 BarBoBot wrote:
If saying "I didnt mean to offend, but if I did its you, not me" ruffles feathers so quickly, you wouldn't last a second around most of the people I hang with.

Not that I should have to justify myself...

It's the combination of posts and the response when he was called out. If a mod does nothing - fine. I don't care.
But telling me "oh, it's okay - I wasn't talking about you, just people who play by the rules" and I've said that I play by the rules, he's full of something.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:39:50


Post by: wargamer1985


is a roll of 6 a glancing or penetrating hit RAW?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:45:57


Post by: some bloke


wargamer1985 wrote:
is a roll of 6 a glancing or penetrating hit RAW?


nope, it simply causes an immobilised result and a hull point to be lost. (he said trying to get this thread back on track...)


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:50:37


Post by: Anglacon


rigeld2 wrote:
he's full of something.


Now this is so much more impolite than anything I ever said. Please report yourself.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 17:53:42


Post by: BarBoBot


RAW is not always correct.

As its been pointed out several times, by RAW, models with no eyes can not shoot.

Flying monstrous creatures do not have relentless, or smash, but "relentless smash"

There are times when RAW is wrong.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 18:07:32


Post by: rigeld2


 BarBoBot wrote:
RAW is not always correct.

As its been pointed out several times, by RAW, models with no eyes can not shoot.

Flying monstrous creatures do not have relentless, or smash, but "relentless smash"

There are times when RAW is wrong.

Correct. And in the rules you cited it's obviously wrong.
It's not obviously wrong here.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 18:21:57


Post by: BarBoBot


There was a time not that long ago that people claimed the same thing about vehicles and ALL saves, because by perfectly clear RAW, vehicles could not take a save because saves were taken against wounds. Perfectly clear RAW.... Except certain vehicles came with invul saves.... So That perfectly clear RAW was wrong.

I fully believe the RAW on this is wrong mainly because we have a FaQ that sets a precedent that there are in fact times where vehicles get saves when no pen or glance has occurred.

The other reason I think its wrong, is that there is an established USR for ignoring cover saves, yet the weapon lacks any such rule.

Its my opinion that if they wanted it to ignore cover, it would have the USR.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 18:27:26


Post by: osirisx69


Bojazz wrote:
So as everyone can see this is a highly debated topic. Instead of offering more rules interpretations, I offer some information of how tournaments and other forums have ruled it, for comparison.
Can Cover/Invulns be taken against Grav shots?
Bay Open Area Tournament Yes.
40kGlobal No.
Astronomican RAW No. RAI Yes.
40kGT ETC FAQ No.
Svenka40k (Swedish tournaments) Yes.
Adepticon Tournament Yes.
Feast Of Blades Tournament Yes


Thank you for taking the time to look these up and offer a genuine perspective how contested this is.

Looks like over 65% say yes to cover saves.

Truly thank you.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 19:13:44


Post by: wargamer1985


so my roll of 6 is not a glancing or penetrating hit...

and what are cover saves for vehicles explictly RAW as the C:SM fawq hasnt covered this pointer and with the codex being more upto date, and therefor advanced versus basic rules kick in:

Page 7: Basic Versus Advanced:
Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise. They iinclued the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.

2A load of unimportant speel"

Where advanced rules apply to a specific mode, they always overrride and any contradicting basic rules.2more unimportant speel directly regarding a morale situation"#

On rare occassioons, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rule book, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.


taking out irrelevant poibnters in the text fpormated exactly as it is in the rule book. Including Bold Text

Then in the shooting section we are told how to resolve shots against a vehicle.In the case of a grav weapon only 1 part of this applies due to the above page 7 rule:

Roll to hit. END OF STORY

Advanced then kicks in for Grav Weapons: roll a D6 for each hit and take any 6's and apply an immobilized reults and a hull point of damage.

At what point have you rolled to Penetrate during this process? Wait for this one its a miracle: YOU HAVEN'T

And the final piece of evidence to shut anyone up who wants to claim saves:

Obviously a vehicle cannot Go To Ground, voluntarily or otherwise. If the target is obscured and suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, it must take a cover save.against it like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound ...


And while I don't have for example c:csm where invulnerable saves are covered I believe the wrding is pretty much the same for Invulnerables.

Now evidence ghas once again been put forward to deny saves so bring forth your so called evidence RAW as no faq currently covers this from the brb OR c:sm FAQ


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 19:31:18


Post by: Happyjew


wargamer1985 wrote:
And while I don't have for example c:csm where invulnerable saves are covered I believe the wrding is pretty much the same for Invulnerables.

Now evidence ghas once again been put forward to deny saves so bring forth your so called evidence RAW as no faq currently covers this from the brb OR c:sm FAQ


I shall now present my argument (again). I would first like to say that I agree RAW no saves. However, I do not think that it was intended for that. The first reason being that the rules for grav weapons do not have the Ignores Cover special rule, nor does the Graviton special rule mention models not being allowed saves. This in and of itself is not why.

Graviton weapons cause an Immobilized damage result and the loss of a HP. This sounds familiar, almost like...Dangerous Terrain. That said there are two notable differences between the two. First, and this is a minor difference, the D6 result needed to cause the damage. Since the FAQs specify that vehicles can take invuln saves against dangerous terrain, that sets a precedent for invulnerable saves (at least) to be taken against grav weapons.
Now what about cover saves? This brings me to the second difference. Dangerous Terrain specifically says models cannot take cover saves against it.
Now since, invulnerable saves and cover saves perform a similar function (protection against glances/pens) and precedent shows that vehicles are allowed to take invulnerable saves against damage that bypasses penetration rolls entirely, then logically, unless specified otherwise (such as Dangerous Terrain), if a model can take an invulnerable save, it can take a cover save (assuming it has one of course).


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 20:02:49


Post by: Eihnlazer


Happy dont forget that invunerable saves themselves may be taken againgst all forms of dmg unless they are specifically stated to not be allowed.

This is not the case with cover saves.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 20:23:39


Post by: Happyjew


Eihnlazer wrote:
Happy dont forget that invunerable saves themselves may be taken againgst all forms of dmg unless they are specifically stated to not be allowed.

This is not the case with cover saves.


Not true. Per the BRB FAQ:

Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a penetrating or glancing hit. (I removed the part about wounds)

There is nothing else in the FAQ pertaining to vehicles and Invulnerable saves.

Per the Dark Eldar FAQ:

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a
Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

This specifies that an Invuln save can be taken against Dangerous Terrain tests, and do not mention other forms of damage. As such, strict RAW, only flickerfields can negate Dangerous Terrain, as no other wargear/special rule for vehicles allow it.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 20:33:25


Post by: ian_destiny


 Happyjew wrote:
Eihnlazer wrote:
Happy dont forget that invunerable saves themselves may be taken againgst all forms of dmg unless they are specifically stated to not be allowed.

This is not the case with cover saves.


Not true. Per the BRB FAQ:

Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a penetrating or glancing hit. (I removed the part about wounds)

There is nothing else in the FAQ pertaining to vehicles and Invulnerable saves.

Per the Dark Eldar FAQ:

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a
Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

This specifies that an Invuln save can be taken against Dangerous Terrain tests, and do not mention other forms of damage. As such, strict RAW, only flickerfields can negate Dangerous Terrain, as no other wargear/special rule for vehicles allow it.


Excellent !

Thank you for all of your answers.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 21:46:36


Post by: some bloke


to those who say it would have 'ignores cover' if it was to ignore cover saves for vehicles, might I point out that they would then also ignore cover against infantry - as AP2 weaponry, that'd be ludicrously powerful. hence it doesn't ignore cover against infantry, only vehicles.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 22:21:58


Post by: MarkyMark


Bojazz wrote:
So as everyone can see this is a highly debated topic. Instead of offering more rules interpretations, I offer some information of how tournaments and other forums have ruled it, for comparison.
Can Cover/Invulns be taken against Grav shots?
Bay Open Area Tournament Yes.
40kGlobal No.
Astronomican RAW No. RAI Yes.
40kGT ETC FAQ No.
Svenka40k (Swedish tournaments) Yes.
Adepticon Tournament Yes.
Feast Of Blades Tournament Yes


40K global is someone posting on there, thats not from anyone that does the podcast (I will also add that person runs grav heavy bike lists). 40k GT allowed cover saves and invuls for Grav weapons last year, they use the basis of the ETC FAQ but with a few differences, you have linked to the latest ETC FAQ there (which is still not finished iirc).


Some Bloke, wounds are caused against infantry models, the BRB is quite clear on how to handle wounds and cover saves.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 22:24:45


Post by: FlingitNow


to those who say it would have 'ignores cover' if it was to ignore cover saves for vehicles, might I point out that they would then also ignore cover against infantry - as AP2 weaponry, that'd be ludicrously powerful. hence it doesn't ignore cover against infantry, only vehicles.


Have you heard of Gravstar? Anyway if they wanted the weapons to ignore cover and invulnerable saves they woukd have told you so. When reading GW rules it is always best to assume the status quo of a process and only change the parts they tell you to. Unfortunately they simply don't write rules tight enough to use RaW as the main basis of your understanding of their rules. The process here is changed at one point that point is the penetration roll everything else should therefore apply as usual.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 22:32:49


Post by: sonicaucie


RAW: No

HIWPI: Yes

I'd expect my opponent to raise the issue before the game if he wanted to play it this way and I'd probably only let him do it if I deemed it unimportant enough for me to really care about it, but I dislike these kind of rule interpretation because it is so obviously a loophole that the player is trying to exploit.

"You see, because my gun doesn't use the vehicle damage table, you don't get to benefit from those rules which includes invuln and cover saves..."

My rebuke is that if the designers had intended the gun to be used in that fashion then they should have put a special rule on the weapon that stated it has ignores cover, all saves against vehicle or something to that effect and that if they want to play a game with loopholes then I should be allowed to place warhound titans, overlords and anything else I can find into my warrior squads because it states "add D3 models" instead of "D3 necron warriors" in the repair barge rule of the ghost ark.



Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 23:08:50


Post by: liturgies of blood


 FlingitNow wrote:
When reading GW rules it is always best to assume the status quo of a process and only change the parts they tell you to. Unfortunately they simply don't write rules tight enough to use RaW as the main basis of your understanding of their rules. The process here is changed at one point that point is the penetration roll everything else should therefore apply as usual.


I think it is a mistake to assume status quo when you are dealing with things beyond it, many new rules tend to ignore the process entirely. For example people trying to put restrictions on vector strike by assuming it must function similarly to shooting attacks with LOS etc.
For most things RAW is fine. How many attacks do I have, what do I roll to hit etc are perfectly clear raw.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/23 23:43:04


Post by: insaniak


sonicaucie wrote:
My rebuke is that if the designers had intended the gun to be used in that fashion...

To which the response is 'What does what the designers intended have to do with what the rules say?'

If they intended for the rules to work differently to how they wrote them, and subsequently want the game played as per their intention rather than the printed rules, well, that's what Errata is for.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 00:09:33


Post by: Powerguy


 some bloke wrote:
to those who say it would have 'ignores cover' if it was to ignore cover saves for vehicles, might I point out that they would then also ignore cover against infantry - as AP2 weaponry, that'd be ludicrously powerful. hence it doesn't ignore cover against infantry, only vehicles.

That's not how it works at all. Part of the problem here is that people are using the words 'Ignores Cover' when they shouldn't. Ignores Cover is a special rule, it has a very specific and well defined meaning within the scope of 40k - i.e weapons/models with this rule do not allow cover saves to be taken against them. Grav Guns do not have this rule, and saying that they Ignore Cover or even Ignore Cover against vehicles is not correct.

The reason vehicles do not get cover saves against Grav is because they have their own special rules for damaging vehicles which completely skip the step where you would even check to see if you have a cover save let alone take the cover save. It would be more accurate to say that Grav have an 'Ignore the Normal Damage process' special rule rather than 'Ignores Cover', because that is a more accurate summary of how they work. RAW I think its pretty clear you don't get cover, this is how I rule it for the tournaments I run, but would be quite happy playing it the other way in a pick up game because RAI it makes no sense. The only way you are going to be able to take a cover save for vehicles against Grav is if you rework their rules for damaging vehicles - i.e this is really something that needs an Errata rather than an FAQ because the rules for Grav only cover the most straightforward cases (shooting infantry and vehicles out of cover). We also have no definative way to deal with shooting at a unit with mixed armour saves. The Flickerfield ruling gives you a precedent because it specifically says that you can take an invulnerable save against the actual damage result, but by itself is not enough to change the RAW ruling (it just supports the RAI ruling).

At the very least I think everyone on both sides of this argument can agree that the rules for Grav are written terribly.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 00:22:40


Post by: Bojazz


MarkyMark wrote:
40K global is someone posting on there, thats not from anyone that does the podcast (I will also add that person runs grav heavy bike lists). 40k GT allowed cover saves and invuls for Grav weapons last year, they use the basis of the ETC FAQ but with a few differences, you have linked to the latest ETC FAQ there (which is still not finished iirc)


Thanks for the corrections! I was not aware of either of those facts, and will especially consider the one about 40k GT in the future.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 01:12:15


Post by: wargamer1985


So again I issue the challenge: as the this forums rules: Show me where in the GW BRB or C:SM/C:SM FAQ it says that you get cover or Invul saves against grav weapons for vehicles?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 01:18:24


Post by: Johnnytorrance


wargamer1985 wrote:
So again I issue the challenge: as the this forums rules: Show me where in the GW BRB or C:SM/C:SM FAQ it says that you get cover or Invul saves against grav weapons for vehicles?


Show me where it says they have the ignores cover special rule.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 02:03:36


Post by: Fragile


Johnnytorrance wrote:
wargamer1985 wrote:
So again I issue the challenge: as the this forums rules: Show me where in the GW BRB or C:SM/C:SM FAQ it says that you get cover or Invul saves against grav weapons for vehicles?


Show me where it says they have the ignores cover special rule.


Since they obviously don't since infantry can take cover saves


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 04:42:34


Post by: Big Blind Bill


wargamer1985 wrote:
So again I issue the challenge: as the this forums rules: Show me where in the GW BRB or C:SM/C:SM FAQ it says that you get cover or Invul saves against grav weapons for vehicles?

This can be easily be rebutted by asking explicitly where does it say they ignore cover.

Is there a line which states "vehicles gain no benefit from cover or invulnerable saves when taking hits from this weapon"?

The answer is of course no.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 05:09:03


Post by: insaniak


 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Is there a line which states "vehicles gain no benefit from cover or invulnerable saves when taking hits from this weapon"?

There doesn't need to be. In order for vehicles to take a cover save, they need to follow the rules for vehicles taking cover saves... which don't provide any mechanism for them to take the save in this particular situation.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 05:38:11


Post by: Big Blind Bill


 insaniak wrote:
 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Is there a line which states "vehicles gain no benefit from cover or invulnerable saves when taking hits from this weapon"?

There doesn't need to be. In order for vehicles to take a cover save, they need to follow the rules for vehicles taking cover saves... which don't provide any mechanism for them to take the save in this particular situation.


If it doesn't say that it ignores cover, then it is not RAW. What you have is an interpretation of a loophole in the rules. Rather than following the rules for all other weapons that do not include the "ignores cover" tag in their profile, you are instead creating a rule due to your own understanding.

Rules are laid out in writing, they are not inferred. If it should ignore cover, then it would say so.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 05:44:05


Post by: Chrysis


"... suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, ..."

A Glancing or Penetrating Hit. Which of these did the Grav Gun inflict?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 05:50:21


Post by: Big Blind Bill


Chrysis wrote:
"... suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, ..."

A Glancing or Penetrating Hit. Which of these did the Grav Gun inflict?

Immobilized result for difficult terrain, which does it inflict? Neither. Can you take an invulnerable save? Yes.
So there is a precedent for vehicles getting saves when receiving damage which is not through glancing or penetrating hits.
(Obviously you do not get cover saves against damage caused by driving through cover).

Care to explain how this holds up to your theory that vehicles only get saves vs glancing and penetrating hits?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 05:50:58


Post by: insaniak


 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Rules are laid out in writing, they are not inferred. If it should ignore cover, then it would say so.

Here's the problem, though - the argument that no cover save is allowed is the one that is following the printed rules. Allowing the cover save requires the assumption that it is supposed to be allowed, but was just an oversight in the rules.


As has been pointed out, there is a very specific criteria for the vehicle to take a save. The damage from the Grav gun does not match that criteria... therefore, the rule allowing you to take a cover save simply doesn't apply.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 05:55:06


Post by: Big Blind Bill


If it is not explicit, then it is not a rule. Only an interpretation.

You are free to believe it, but I wouldn't play you.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 05:56:11


Post by: Chrysis


 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Chrysis wrote:
"... suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, ..."

A Glancing or Penetrating Hit. Which of these did the Grav Gun inflict?

Immobilized result for difficult terrain, which does it inflict? Neither. Can you take an invulnerable save? Yes.
So there is a precedent for vehicles getting saves when receiving damage which is not through glancing or penetrating hits.
(Obviously you do not get cover saves against damage caused by driving through cover).

Care to explain how this holds up to your theory that vehicles only get saves vs glancing and penetrating hits?


GW put in an exception for a specific piece of wargear in a specific situation, namely the Flickerfield vs. Dangerous Terrain.

The rulebook explicitly forbids mixing the special rules from multiple Close Combat Weapons, yet they allow the Grey Knight Dreadknight to do so in the Grey Knight FAQ. Is this permission to ignore inconvenient parts of the rulebook for everyone or is it specific to certain models and wargear in the Grey Knights codex?



Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 06:02:18


Post by: insaniak


 Big Blind Bill wrote:
If it is not explicit, then it is not a rule. Only an interpretation.

You are free to believe it, but I wouldn't play you.

So I can claim a 2+ invulnerable save on my marines, because there is no rule that explicitly says they don't have one?

Or do I refer to the rules on saves and apply them as they actually say to apply them?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 06:17:35


Post by: Big Blind Bill


The GW clarification on difficult terrain is the closest type of damage to that caused by a grav gun to a vehicle. Whilst it of course does not disprove that grav guns will not allow cover saves,
it does stand as evidence against the statement that "invulnerable saves can only be takes against glancing and penetrating hits". It shows that it is not all encompassing, and there may be exceptions against this.
With this in mind, it is not fair to create rules for the grav gun when they are not explicitly written, because there may be alternatives.
A safer bet is to maintain the status quo of standard weapons, which allow cover, rather than create your own rules made from interpretations, until an FAQ resolves the issue.

So I can claim a 2+ invulnerable save on my marines, because there is no rule that explicitly says they don't have one?
Or do I refer to the rules on saves and apply them as they actually say to apply them?

Codex CM explicitly states that they have power armour. Power armour states that its save is 3+.
Grav guns do not explicitly state that they ignore cover. What is your point?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 06:29:23


Post by: Chrysis


 Big Blind Bill wrote:
The GW clarification on difficult terrain is the closest type of damage to that caused by a grav gun to a vehicle. Whilst it of course does not disprove that grav guns will not allow cover saves,
it does stand as evidence against the statement that "invulnerable saves can only be takes against glancing and penetrating hits". It shows that it is not all encompassing, and there may be exceptions against this.
With this in mind, it is not fair to create rules for the grav gun when they are not explicitly written, because there may be alternatives.
A safer bet is to maintain the status quo of standard weapons, which allow cover, rather than create your own rules made from interpretations, until an FAQ resolves the issue.

So I can claim a 2+ invulnerable save on my marines, because there is no rule that explicitly says they don't have one?
Or do I refer to the rules on saves and apply them as they actually say to apply them?

Codex CM explicitly states that they have power armour. Power armour states that its save is 3+.
Grav guns do not explicitly state that they ignore cover. What is your point?


I disagree. The closest is Jaws of the World Wolf. It bypasses all the standard wounding procedures and goes directly to the result (you are dead). Much like Grav Guns bypass rolling to penetrate and inflicting Glancing/Penetrating in favour of proceeding straight to the results (you are immobilised.) Do you give people cover saves against Jaws of the World Wolf? Of course not, it doesn't inflict wounds. Which is exactly the reasoning GW gave in the FAQ for why it doesn't need Ignores Cover.

So why should you give vehicles cover saves against Grav Guns? They don't inflict Glancing or Penetrating hits, which are what is normally required to qualify for a save. Neither are they Immobilised Results caused by Dangerous Terrain, which is another possible exception that has been carved out for vehicle Invulnerable saves. GW has not seen fit to give any other criteria for qualifying, so the damage from Grav Guns doesn't qualify.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 07:51:25


Post by: FlingitNow


 liturgies of blood wrote:
 FlingitNow wrote:
When reading GW rules it is always best to assume the status quo of a process and only change the parts they tell you to. Unfortunately they simply don't write rules tight enough to use RaW as the main basis of your understanding of their rules. The process here is changed at one point that point is the penetration roll everything else should therefore apply as usual.


I think it is a mistake to assume status quo when you are dealing with things beyond it, many new rules tend to ignore the process entirely. For example people trying to put restrictions on vector strike by assuming it must function similarly to shooting attacks with LOS etc.
For most things RAW is fine. How many attacks do I have, what do I roll to hit etc are perfectly clear raw.


Vector strike isn't a shooting attack and has no shooting profile. LoS is irrelevant because it tells you to use random allocation and how to select your target (i.e. it tells you to change the status quo at times LoS would be relevant).

Yes RaW is fine most of the time but it has many glaring issues like Destroyer weapons, models eyes, FMCs, repair barges etc. The issue here is the attitude to what RaI is. RaI is literally by definition the rules, it is the rules designed by the GW design team.Now my interpretation of RaI is simply that my interpretation and has asuch weight as anyone else's. People on here often confuse the two. You are abusing RaW if you know that an FaQ will rule against you but follow RaW anyway. Like the attitude of a poster below that states this needs an Errata rather than FaQ to allow cover saves when it clearly does not. Because the rules don't need to change because they are clear as is to be honest it shouldn't even need an FaQ and it is a sad indictment of the gaming community that it does. But a simple yes to a FaQ question of do vehicles get cover/invuns against grav weapons is enough.

What you could argue needs an Errata is how to handle mixed save units as the communicated rules give us literally no help here. Though most people follow the status quo of how mixed toughness works as you are intercepting the to wound roll process.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 07:53:39


Post by: Big Blind Bill


JotWW has always been a special snowflake that ignores practically all the rules of the game, to the point where one wonders if it was actually designed with the 40k ruleset in mind at all. No rolls to hit, wound, invulnerable saves Look out sir, and also no eternal warrior. Its effect of "remove model from play" operates beyond most of the rulebook, and is a trait shared with only a handful of other special abilities. When a model is removed due to JotWW, it follows a totally alternate set of rules to those which are normally followed when a model is hit with a standard weapon.


Grav guns operate as a standard shooting attack, with a special addition with regards to damaging vehicles.
They still operate withing the normal bounds of gameplay, they have to hit, roll to wound, and allow cover saves as normal. The damage they inflict vs vehicles is the exact result of a penetrating hit that has rolled an immobilized result on the damage table. The only exception of course is that it does not outright call this a penetrating hit.

Grav guns still follow the more standard rules of the games than JotWW.

Lets look at the quote from the BRB pg 75. that is causing the issue:

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it,
exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.


So the " suffers a glancing or penetrating hit" is where the pro grav gun side get a lot of their argument from. Of course grav guns do not state that they cause them so there us merit to it. However we have seen examples where vehicles have been given saves against damage which is not a penetrating or glancing hit, so this is not a definitive answer.

If the first line does not conclude the discussion, then we may look at the next line, which makes things more contested. "it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound"
Grav guns don't ignore cover vs other targets, and the rulebook states it should be exactly like you would do vs other targets.

Personally I am of the mind that the issue is a loophole in the rules, with no possible method of ascertaining the correct answer due to evidence for both sides. However, because there is no clear conclusion, the method used until an FAQ is released should be that which is currently used by all weapons that do not employ the ignores cover USR.




Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 08:45:13


Post by: insaniak


 Big Blind Bill wrote:

If the first line does not conclude the discussion, then we may look at the next line, which makes things more contested. "it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound"

You can't lift out half of a sentence and them apply it to whatever context suits your needs.

The rule you quoted is an 'if' statement. If 'x', then 'y'. If 'x' doesn't occur, you don't get to skip to 'y' anyway. 'y' doesn't happen, because the trigger for it is absent.

In this specific case, the trigger for rolling the save is the vehicle suffering a glance or pen. If that occurs, then you can roll a save add you would for a non-vehicle model.

That's the issue here. Its not that the grav gun ignores cover. It's that the grav gun doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit, so there is no reason, without a specific rule that says to do so anyway, to roll a save.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 09:05:46


Post by: Big Blind Bill


 insaniak wrote:
 Big Blind Bill wrote:

If the first line does not conclude the discussion, then we may look at the next line, which makes things more contested. "it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound"

You can't lift out half of a sentence and them apply it to whatever context suits your needs.

The rule you quoted is an 'if' statement. If 'x', then 'y'. If 'x' doesn't occur, you don't get to skip to 'y' anyway. 'y' doesn't happen, because the trigger for it is absent.

In this specific case, the trigger for rolling the save is the vehicle suffering a glance or pen. If that occurs, then you can roll a save add you would for a non-vehicle model.

That's the issue here. Its not that the grav gun ignores cover. It's that the grav gun doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit, so there is no reason, without a specific rule that says to do so anyway, to roll a save.

I didn't lift half a sentence. Read my point again. I stated that because there is a precedent that some vehicle damage does not cause a glancing or penetrating hit, yet saves may be taken against it, then the first part of the rules is now brought into contestation. Therefore, other parts of the evidence which succeed it may be evaluated.



Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 09:09:44


Post by: nosferatu1001


Yes, and do those other rules mention grav guns? No? Then there is no precedent.

You don't get to get past the "if" unless you have a rule allowing it. You don't have a rule allowing it.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 09:15:29


Post by: insaniak


 Big Blind Bill wrote:
I stated that because there is a precedent that some vehicle damage does not cause a glancing or penetrating hit, yet saves may be taken against it, then the first part of the rules is now brought into contestation.

It's not, though.

That rule allows you to take a save against a glancing or penetrating hit.

Other specific statements may allow you to take a save against something else. That doesn't invalidate that statement in regards to cover saves. It simply gives another way that a vehicle may gain permission to take a save in a different specific situation.

It doesn't set a precedent for anything. In a different game, it might. But this is a game where a character who doesn't take up a FOC slot may or may not count towards compulsory limits, where bikers may use 2 close combat weapons or only 1, where special abilities may or may not apply to units in transports, or where 'removed as a casualty' and 'removed from the play' are two different things... except when they're not. And all completely arbitrarily depending on which codex a given FAQ is for, with (generally) no reasoning given for those differences. So the fact that they ruled that the flickerfield allows a save against terrain immobilisation does not in any way mean that the next FAQ won't include an answer to a similar rules question along the lines of 'No, vehicles only get saves from glancing or penetrating hits'.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 09:18:25


Post by: Big Blind Bill


Believe there is no precedent if you wish. Most tournaments seem to be coming down on the side of allowing cover, as are a larger majority of the players (taking the dakka poll as an example).

Now this debate has been going on for months, and there is no certain correct answer. Only restating old facts.
I'll wait for an faq, and firmly believe that they will allow cover when and if it is released. Until then, in my games they will be allowing it.




Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 18:53:50


Post by: barnowl


 BarBoBot wrote:
RAW is not always correct.

As its been pointed out several times, by RAW, models with no eyes can not shoot.

Flying monstrous creatures do not have relentless, or smash, but "relentless smash"

There are times when RAW is wrong.


And this is YMDC which is all about the RAW in all it's grand stupidity. By pure raw, yes models with out eyes can't shot., models with eye's not facing a target can't get LOS and tons of other weird silliness. But that is the point of YMDC, determine RAW, see if you can make it work, and present HYWPI solutions marked as such for the unplayable silly.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 23:11:15


Post by: BarBoBot


YMDC is not just all about RAW...

Its been assumed by many people that it is, but its not true. Go ahead and read that quote I have listed in my sig.

That quote is a response from a mod to someone claiming the same thing you do.



Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 23:15:32


Post by: rigeld2


 BarBoBot wrote:
YMDC is not just all about RAW...

Its been assumed by many people that it is, but its not true. Go ahead and read that quote I have listed in my sig.

That quote is a response from a mod to someone claiming the same thing you do.

Except the RAW in this case isn't absurd.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 23:36:33


Post by: BarBoBot


No, but it shows that YMDC is not just a RAW discussion forum.

The vast majority of players are not RAW purists.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 23:44:29


Post by: JinxDragon


However, if there is to be any meaningful debate over which persons method is 'correct' we need criteria to judge against.
It is not surprising that 'Rule as Written' is one of the few criteria we can agree on, and considered the strongest.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/24 23:59:21


Post by: BarBoBot


I agree, and that's why I agreed that the RAW is clear.

When someone claims that any discussion outside of RAW isnt welcome because this is YMDC, they are dead wrong.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 00:02:26


Post by: FlingitNow


JinxDragon wrote:
However, if there is to be any meaningful debate over which persons method is 'correct' we need criteria to judge against.
It is not surprising that 'Rule as Written' is one of the few criteria we can agree on, and considered the strongest.


which is the default setting of the RaW purist yet entirely untrue. Check any number of debates on here that go to 10+ pages of RaW arguments. So we can always agree on RaW just like we can't always agree on RaI. Nor can we prove RaW anymore than we can prove RaI.

RaW has more common ground to it and in some cases is more knowable than RaI. Also understanding RaW is useful. But playing by RaW shouldn't be the aim as many on here contest and RaW isn't the rules as many on here laughably claim. RaI is the what we should be trying to get to if that is not possible or obviously clear RaW can be a great go to solution, can be not always the case.

Lets take destroyer weapons as a case. RaW they do nothing, RaI we don't really know how they work. Do the models under the template get sniped or do we assign hits as we would normally allocate wounds. We don't know but we will play by one of those two likely RaI interpretations rather than the RaW.

Other times the RaI is clear like drawing LoS from models eyes and we just ignore the RaW as we know what they mean. This is another case like that but because it is an advantage that some want to claim that isn't perceived to be game breaking like LoS then people argue the RaW even though we all know what the actual RaI is. The attitude of "I know what the rule is but until they FaQ it I believe I am entitled to get away with cheating".


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 00:10:10


Post by: liturgies of blood


If the rules on the page aren't the rules Fling what the hell are they?

Rules, laws etc all have an amount of interpretation to one degree or another but that doesn't mean that what's on the page isn't the rule or law.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 00:13:00


Post by: insaniak


 FlingitNow wrote:
... then people argue the RaW even though we all know what the actual RaI is. The attitude of "I know what the rule is but until they FaQ it I believe I am entitled to get away with cheating".

Except we don't know what the intention was in this case. You can guess. You can even think it's a fairly informed and likely correct guess. But until GW say for sure one way or another, it's just a guess... And until that happens, someone disagreeing with your guess and playing by the rules we currently have is not cheating.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 01:23:19


Post by: Imperator_Class


Fling, unless you can show me, with empirical evidence, that you know the GW teams that devised these rules personally, you can NEVER claim "The words on the page are wrong, this is how they meant to design it."


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 01:56:39


Post by: wargamer1985


wargamer1985 wrote:
so my roll of 6 is not a glancing or penetrating hit...

and what are cover saves for vehicles explictly RAW as the C:SM fawq hasnt covered this pointer and with the codex being more upto date, and therefor advanced versus basic rules kick in:

Page 7: Basic Versus Advanced:
Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise. They iinclued the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.

2A load of unimportant speel"

Where advanced rules apply to a specific mode, they always overrride and any contradicting basic rules.2more unimportant speel directly regarding a morale situation"#

On rare occassioons, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rule book, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.


taking out irrelevant poibnters in the text fpormated exactly as it is in the rule book. Including Bold Text

Then in the shooting section we are told how to resolve shots against a vehicle.In the case of a grav weapon only 1 part of this applies due to the above page 7 rule:

Roll to hit. END OF STORY

Advanced then kicks in for Grav Weapons: roll a D6 for each hit and take any 6's and apply an immobilized reults and a hull point of damage.

At what point have you rolled to Penetrate during this process? Wait for this one its a miracle: YOU HAVEN'T

And the final piece of evidence to shut anyone up who wants to claim saves:

Obviously a vehicle cannot Go To Ground, voluntarily or otherwise. If the target is obscured and suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, it must take a cover save.against it like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound ...


And while I don't have for example c:csm where invulnerable saves are covered I believe the wrding is pretty much the same for Invulnerables.

Now evidence ghas once again been put forward to deny saves so bring forth your so called evidence RAW as no faq currently covers this from the brb OR c:sm FAQ


Pulling several posts back to the front that i have made recently in this very subject on this discussion.. the GRAV GUNS USE ADVANCED RULES: Advanced versus basic see above overrides the normal sdhooting procedurre for shooting vehicles versus the normal shooting procedure for shooting themm. Grav guns dont get ignores Cover as infantry can get out of the way. A buiig hulking tankcannot:L fluff back up and see these previously posted quotes for ACTUAL rules back up


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 09:45:55


Post by: FlingitNow


 liturgies of blood wrote:
If the rules on the page aren't the rules Fling what the hell are they?

Rules, laws etc all have an amount of interpretation to one degree or another but that doesn't mean that what's on the page isn't the rule or law.


As you brought up Law what is important in law the written words (RaW) or the spirit and intent (RaI)?

Why should it be different for 40k?

The rules are what the design team designed. The written rules are their attempt to communicate them to us. That is the purpose of language, to communicate ideas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 insaniak wrote:
 FlingitNow wrote:
... then people argue the RaW even though we all know what the actual RaI is. The attitude of "I know what the rule is but until they FaQ it I believe I am entitled to get away with cheating".

Except we don't know what the intention was in this case. You can guess. You can even think it's a fairly informed and likely correct guess. But until GW say for sure one way or another, it's just a guess... And until that happens, someone disagreeing with your guess and playing by the rules we currently have is not cheating.


Underlined is as you well know totally false. Its not helpful to post things we all know are not true. You can know to a reasonable doubt just as you can with RaW. Unless you're willing to prove we're not all hallucinating?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 09:53:19


Post by: Daba


Whether they are advanced rules or not don't matter in this case. A save is a save, and they are apparently allowed against vehicle damage that does not originate from a glancing or penetrating hit.

From the precedent, it is only logical to assume that they would be allowed, combined with the fact that cover saves for non vehicle targets are allowed and it does not have any explicit cover ignoring rules, so if it ignores cover for vehicle it would be frankly bizarre.

The whole thing seems more like an easter egg thanks to poorly worded rules.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 09:53:29


Post by: insaniak


 FlingitNow wrote:
The rules are what the design team designed. The written rules are their attempt to communicate them to us. That is the purpose of language, to communicate ideas.

Which is exactly why your refusal to accept that the written rules represent the rules of the game as they are applied to the game is so ridiculous.



Underlined is as you well know totally false. Its not helpful to post things we all know are not true. You can know to a reasonable doubt just as you can with RaW. Unless you're willing to prove we're not all hallucinating?

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 09:53:39


Post by: FlingitNow


 Imperator_Class wrote:
Fling, unless you can show me, with empirical evidence, that you know the GW teams that devised these rules personally, you can NEVER claim "The words on the page are wrong, this is how they meant to design it."


Why not? I know when some one says to me "Can you tell me the time?" That as simple yes is not the response they want. It is entirely normal human social interaction to understand communication in a non-literal manner. So why can't we do that here?

I can tell you as fact that they did not mean for destroyer weapons to do nothing and for FMCs to have the as yet undefined "Relentless Smash" special rule. Just as I can tell you that thry did not mean for Grav weapions to bypass invulnerable saves on vehicles.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 09:57:31


Post by: insaniak


 Daba wrote:
... and they are apparently allowed against vehicle damage that does not originate from a glancing or penetrating hit.

Not actually true.

What we know right now is that a save is allowed from one specific damaging effect, for a vehicle with one specific piece of wargear. Since nobody took the time to explain why that save is allowed in contradiction to the actual rules, there is no way to know whether or not it should be taken as a precedent for any other non-penetrating/glancing damage... even if we choose to believe that precedent has any weight when GW are making rulings despite all evidence to the contrary.


...so if it ignores cover for vehicle it would be frankly bizarre..

It doesn't ignore cover for vehicles. Ignoring cover is not the issue. The issue is solely that it doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 09:57:44


Post by: FlingitNow


Which is exactly why your refusal to accept that the written rules represent the rules of the game as they are applied to the game is so ridiculous. 


Why is my refusal to accept RaW = RaI so ridiculous exactly?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 10:12:44


Post by: insaniak


 FlingitNow wrote:
Why is my refusal to accept RaW = RaI so ridiculous exactly?

Do we really need to go over this yet again?

The issue isn't that you refuse to accept that RAW = RAI... because in some cases it doesn't. It's that you refuse to accept that the RAW is the rules. Hence the big piece of text at the front of them that says 'The Rules'.

Yes, those rules will sometimes differ from what the writers intended when they wrote them. In that case, they have the opportunity to correct that by issuing an FAQ. If they don't do so, then the only logical conclusion is that they're happy for the rules to remain as written, regardless of what they originally intended.

We've had plenty of examples over the years where GW have explicitly ruled in favour of the RAW that made it into the book over the way they originally intended the rule to work. So no matter how strongly you believe your idea of what the RAI probably is to be correct, you still have absolutely nothing to show that this is the way that the game is actually 'supposed' to be played now. All you have is a guess that the writer intended something different to what he wrote, and another guess that if a ruling is made that it will go in favour of the original intention rather than the written rule.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 10:18:56


Post by: FlingitNow


The issue isn't that you refuse to accept that RAW = RAI... because in some cases it doesn't. It's that you refuse to accept that the RAWis the rules. Hence the big piece of text at the front of them that says 'The Rules'. 


I have no idea what this means. It isn't my refusal to accept RaW = RaI but my refusal that RaW is RaI? How is that different?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 10:37:28


Post by: Mywik


 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue isn't that you refuse to accept that RAW = RAI... because in some cases it doesn't. It's that you refuse to accept that the RAWis the rules. Hence the big piece of text at the front of them that says 'The Rules'. 


I have no idea what this means. It isn't my refusal to accept RaW = RaI but my refusal that RaW is RaI? How is that different?


Claiming RAYTTWI (Rules as you think they were intended) is fine. A lot of people are fine with posting their view on the RAI while acknowledging the RAW. Its perfectly fine to play by a RAI as opposed to RAW.

What is not fine is calling people cheater when they try to play RAW instead of RATPY (Rules as they please you),

The attitude that cheating is ok if you can semantically out argue your opponent is baffling to me.


Its posts like this one that people criticise ... not your raw=/=rai approach




Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 0047/04/25 10:42:45


Post by: Daba


 insaniak wrote:

Not actually true.

What we know right now is that a save is allowed from one specific damaging effect, for a vehicle with one specific piece of wargear. Since nobody took the time to explain why that save is allowed in contradiction to the actual rules, there is no way to know whether or not it should be taken as a precedent for any other non-penetrating/glancing damage... even if we choose to believe that precedent has any weight when GW are making rulings despite all evidence to the contrary.

Since it is FAQ (and not errata), it is explaining how that one works with the rules (rather than a change that means it specifically affects the rules in that way). In the case of this piece of wargear, it only says 'x+ invulnerable save' with nothing else so for all intents and purposes, that is how a vehicle with a save is affected - while it is an invulnerable save in this case, the rules for saving throws are the same and the differences are only in the exceptions where they are explicitly stated to apply or not (e.g. AP denying saves, or the USR Ignores Cover).



It doesn't ignore cover for vehicles. Ignoring cover is not the issue. The issue is solely that it doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit.

It is in 'game effect' rather than the wording of the rules. Other than this anomaly, the Grav weapon behaves exactly as a normal shooting attack and even things that don't follow the normal rules (such as psychic shooting powers that don't use strength) explicitly mention 'no armour or cover saves' where relevant. That's why I regard the 'glancing and penetrating hit' thing from vehicle cover saves to be an Easter egg where this weapon has nothing specifically mentioning cover, but it is similar enough to other effects that do have to mention cover.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 10:46:45


Post by: Mywik


 Daba wrote:

Since it is FAQ (and not errata), it is explaining how that one works with the rules (rather than a change that means it specifically affects the rules in that way).


If this is true show me how the heldrake faq is only a clarification on the rules. They invented completely different shooting rules for the model in the faq. If this isnt a rules change instead of a clarification i dont know what is. Faqs demonstrably DO change rules sometimes.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 11:01:07


Post by: FlingitNow


 Mywik wrote:
 Daba wrote:

Since it is FAQ (and not errata), it is explaining how that one works with the rules (rather than a change that means it specifically affects the rules in that way).


If this is true show me how the heldrake faq is only a clarification on the rules. They invented completely different shooting rules for the model in the faq. If this isnt a rules change instead of a clarification i dont know what is. Faqs demonstrably DO change rules sometimes.


FaQs don't change rules they clarify rules. That is the RaW of what an FaQ does. They do change RaW though and we know they don't change rules. Which proves RaW =/= RaI.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 11:07:14


Post by: wargamer1985


and ALSO since we only refer to them as FAQ's everyone seems to forget they are actually referred to as Errata and FAQ's which is what they were also listed under on the GW website


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 12:25:48


Post by: insaniak


 FlingitNow wrote:
I have no idea what this means. It isn't my refusal to accept RaW = RaI but my refusal that RaW is RaI? How is that different?

Yes, aside from how that's not at all what I said, that's totally what I said.

I think that's enough turns around the merry-go-round for this time around.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 13:15:10


Post by: rigeld2


 Daba wrote:
Since it is FAQ (and not errata), it is explaining how that one works with the rules (rather than a change that means it specifically affects the rules in that way).

So you're just going to ignore the Shooting rules change that pretends to be an FAQ, or any of the various other rules changes that are pretending to be FAQs?


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 13:34:59


Post by: liturgies of blood


 FlingitNow wrote:
 liturgies of blood wrote:
If the rules on the page aren't the rules Fling what the hell are they?

Rules, laws etc all have an amount of interpretation to one degree or another but that doesn't mean that what's on the page isn't the rule or law.


As you brought up Law what is important in law the written words (RaW) or the spirit and intent (RaI)?

Why should it be different for 40k?

The rules are what the design team designed. The written rules are their attempt to communicate them to us. That is the purpose of language, to communicate ideas.


Well I hate to point out the reality of law but it's RAW until changed by either a high court's interpretation or the legislature.
So just like 40k, you go with the RAW unless the faq or new edition changes in, assuming of course the rule isn't unworkable.


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 14:38:45


Post by: nosferatu1001


Apparently when GW wrote a heading called THE RULES, in a thing entitled a RULEBOOK, we are NOT supposed to think that this contains the actual rules - just something else.

Crazy us, eh, for thinking otherwise!


Can vehicles take cover save against Grav weapons. Can vehicles take invulnerable saves against it @ 2014/04/25 14:48:13


Post by: sirlynchmob


They also wrote the rules knowing they're flawed, hence the most important rule, and a handful of other rules that start with, unless agreed upon try it this way, and it's important to discuss.

It's not so much RAW, or RAI, but RBA (Rules by Agreement).