Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh and this errata...

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

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

Oh and this errata...

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

Ah! Perfect. Errata certainly clears that up

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

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same would apply for Glance/Pen's

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

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

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

The same would apply for Glance/Pen's

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

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

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

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

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

Are you referring to this one?

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

If so, it is still there.

Also a new FAQ is on there stating

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

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

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

The same would apply for Glance/Pen's

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

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

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

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

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

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

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 DarthOvious wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such as?

Does losing a hull point from an imobilised result count?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my, how complicated things have become.

 DarthOvious wrote:

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

Such as?

Helbrutes going apegak crazy because someone shot them.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Such as?

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

Does losing a hull point from an imobilised result count?

How do you mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Hull Points.

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

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

Kangodo wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Such as?

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

OK

Does losing a hull point from an imobilised result count?

How do you mean?

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

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

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

OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 DarthOvious wrote:

Spoiler:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Spoiler:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This.