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.

 DarthOvious wrote:

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

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

#1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Mulletdude wrote:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But keep on trucking.

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

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

 Bausk wrote:

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

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

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

Edit, NM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 grendel083 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Belly wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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