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.

At this point the writers should have realized this issue and worded it to grant cover saves on vehicles if they wanted it to.


It does not grant cover due to the wording, and it was done that way on purpouse

Except Grav weapons dont ignore cover. And while dangerous terrain tests can be saved by the flicker field, this is dealing with cover saves.

The flickerfield save vs failed dangerous terrain is the closest thing there is to this scenario.

Both apply immobilized results without a pen/glance ever occurring.

DE FAQ sets a precedent that there are scenarios where vehicles can take saves without ever being penned/glanced.

Again, if the authors intended for grav weapons to ignore cover vs vehicles, they would have the USR.

Even if by some wierd chance that they did in fact intend for it to only ignore cover vs vehicles, it would have had "ignores cover: vehicles" similar to how a warlord trait can grant "stealth: ruins" or "hatred: space marines".

If they wanted vehicles to have cover saves, why would they so explicitly make it clear that it is not an armour penetration roll and causes no glancing or penetratings, but still strips a hull point?

The DE FAQ also holds no weight. Ok, you can take invulnerable saves against dangerous terrain immobilisations, i will concede that. But is this a dangerous terrain test?

Imperator_Class wrote:
If they wanted vehicles to have cover saves, why would they so explicitly make it clear that it is not an armour penetration roll and causes no glancing or penetratings, but still strips a hull point?

The DE FAQ also holds no weight. Ok, you can take invulnerable saves against dangerous terrain immobilisations, i will concede that. But is this a dangerous terrain test?

The argument is as follows:
Dangerous Terrain causes Immobilisation and lose a HP.
Graviton causes Immobilisation and lose a HP.
The Dark Eldar FAQ sets a precedent with vehicles saving against damage results not caused by a glancing or penetrating hit (cover saves is irrelevant as Dangerous Terrain ignores cover save).
Since GW has set a precedent, one can logically conclude that if a vehicle suffers damage (without a penetrating or glancing hit) then a vehicle would still be able to take saves against it (unless otherwise restricted).

As I said in my original post, it is not RAW, but it seems to be intended and HIWPI.

Except cover saves are NOT irrelevant, as that is what this thread is focused on, not invulnerable saves, which the DE FAQ addresses. Maybe they do intend INV saves to be allowed, but cover is a different animal.

You yourself stated that dangerous ignores cover saves, so by your own logic this applies to Graviton, and therefore, no cover saves for vehicles against Graviton. You cannot refute this, as you would be refuting yourself.

What?

How can you claim that inv saves can be taken when there is no pen but not cover?

What's the distinction?

We have a single scenario that sets a precedent proving that there are times when a vehicle can take a save even when there is no pen/glance.

THAT is something that can't be refuted.

Imperator_Class wrote:
Except cover saves are NOT irrelevant, as that is what this thread is focused on, not invulnerable saves, which the DE FAQ addresses. Maybe they do intend INV saves to be allowed, but cover is a different animal.

You yourself stated that dangerous ignores cover saves, so by your own logic this applies to Graviton, and therefore, no cover saves for vehicles against Graviton. You cannot refute this, as you would be refuting yourself.

Cover Saves are irrelevant when talking about Dangerous Terrain.

I stated that dangerous terrain ignores cover saves because the rules for dangerous terrain specifically say that models cannot take cover saves. Graviton has no such wording ergo I can refute your argument without refuting mine. Especially since I said strict RAW no cover for vehicles.

No, there is a precedent set that an Invulnerable save may be taken in the event of a no pen/glance effect due to the flicker field, but it mentions NOTHING about cover saves. I can take invulnerables against this does not mean i can take cover saves against this too. Why are you trying to justify cover saves using an FAQ that clarifies invulnerables?

Maybe because Invulnerable saves are only taken against glancing/penetrating hits just like cover saves, and the FAQ shows precedent on taking saves against non-hit damage?

Bingo!

The definition of precedent tells us that you use a previous example to guide you to a conclusion on similar circumstances.

How much more similar can it be with both causing a immobilized result and loss of hull point with no glance/pen?

No, it sets the precedent that invulnerable saves can be taken against non-hit damage, because it is ONLY talking about an invulnerable save. How can you possibly be getting precedents about cover saving, which is separate from an invulnerable save, so following its own guidelines no matter how close they may be to an invulnerable save, from an FAQ that says you can save the immobilised result with an INV save and Not another way?

If the Flicker Field gave a Cover save instead of an Invulnerable save, would you still be arguing?

No, but it doesnt, so it holds no purpose in the thread about COVER saves.

This whole grav gun ignoring cover is the dumbest rule conundrum I've seen in a long time. You are really stretching if you try to say you can't get cover saves against it.
It's pretty obvious what the writers meant, which I know doesn't mean much, but c'mon!

Cover saves are taken in the same way that invulnerable saves are. If you have both of those saves, and the weapon does not have the ignores cover USR, then you take whichever is the best save.

If grav weapons ignore cover saves, they ignore invulnerable saves for the exact same reason.

Please explain how you've come to the conclusion that cover saves are denied any differently than invulnerable saves.

We have a faq that tells us that there is at least 1 instance that a invulnerable save can be taken even when no pen or glance occured. If the dangerous terrain rules didnt specifically say you dont get cover, then you would get it for the same reason you got the invul....

 Happyjew wrote:
Strict RAW, vehicles do not get cover saves, as it is not a glancing/penetrating hit.

However, the Dark Eldar FAQ sets a precedent on saving against non-glancing/penetrating hits. HIWPI vehicles get cover saves.

What he said ^

So, is there any real difference between "takes a wound" and "loses a single Hull Point"?

herpguy wrote:
This whole grav gun ignoring cover is the dumbest rule conundrum I've seen in a long time. You are really stretching if you try to say you can't get cover saves against it.
It's pretty obvious what the writers meant, which I know doesn't mean much, but c'mon!

I used to think like that, then I saw the Heldrakes FAQ and all bets are off.

This will definitely be one that requires a FAQ. At this point the best you can do is play RAW, and to me it says there is no cover save due to the way it inflicts damage.

BarBoBot. The problem is that since grav weapons dont cause glancing or penetrating hits, they do not fulfill the reauirements for a cover save. So RAW, no cover saves can be taken.

I would give vehicles an inv save if they have it, due to the flicker field FAQ, but not cover.

Explain why invulnerable saves should be treated differently than cover saves. Both need the same requirements of a glance/pen to work.

Because they were specifically addressed and cover saves werent is my thought.

The FAQ that your referring to says vehicles get invulnerable saves against failed dangerous terrain tests.

It doesn't mention cover saves because the dangerous terrain rules already tell you you don't get a cover save...

If the dangerous terrain rules didnt specifically say you don't get cover.... Then you would get cover...

Grav weapons have nothing stating that they ignore cover, so they don't.

 BarBoBot wrote:
The FAQ that your referring to says vehicles get invulnerable saves against failed dangerous terrain tests.

It doesn't mention cover saves because the dangerous terrain rules already tell you you don't get a cover save...

If the dangerous terrain rules didnt specifically say you don't get cover.... Then you would get cover...

Grav weapons have nothing stating that they ignore cover, so they don't.

They don't ignore cover but where do you get the permission to make a cover save?

As mentioned before, the DE FAQ sets a precedent that you get saves even when there is no pen or glance.

The DE FAQ allows invul saves vs failed dangerous terrain tests.

Failed dangerous terrain test cause an immobilized result and loss a a hull point.

Exact same wording as grav.

 liturgies of blood wrote:


They don't ignore cover but where do you get the permission to make a cover save?

You have permission to take a save in these circumstances even though no penetrating or glancing hit occurs, from the DE FAQ. The reason the DE FAQ doesn't focus on Cover Saves is that Dangerous Terrain explicitly disallows cover saves.

We have a situation where we know, from an analogous situation, that we have permission to take saves. Graviton weapons, unlike Dangerous Terrain, do not explicitly disallow cover saves by the Ignores Cover USR or other explicit language. Without the restriction from the Dangerous Terrain situation, we can take cover saves in this situation, even though the 'trigger' of a glancing or penetrating hit may not occur.

Thus, vehicles can take cover (and invulnerable) saves against Graviton Weapons.

Precedent is not RAW, it's how you extrapolate a specific example out into the wider game. Sometimes an FAQ is specific to that question, other times it's not and changes how the game is played. I am never sold by precedent being based on two leaps of logic.

You're doing two leaps here with this one.
1stly you assume that all non hit damage is the same, this is questionable at best and is a leap.

2nd you're assuming all saves are the same and can be applied to the above leap. This is far from RAW.

AHA! Someone who agrees with me

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Precedent is not RAW, it's how you extrapolate a specific example out into the wider game. Sometimes an FAQ is specific to that question, other times it's not and changes how the game is played. I am never sold by precedent being based on two leaps of logic.

You're doing two leaps here with this one.
1stly you assume that all non hit damage is the same, this is questionable at best and is a leap.

2nd you're assuming all saves are the same and can be applied to the above leap. This is far from RAW.

And you'll notice I never claimed that precedent was RAW.

There have been numerous times when one specific FAQ sets a precedent for similar situations. Scout and Smoke Launchers (in 5th edition) is one example. Dark Reaper Exarch and multiple barrage is another.
The point is occasionally an FAQ gives us an idea of what GW actually meant (even if they do not address the situation and we have 10+ pages arguing it).

Happy I never said you presented it as RAW. I was just responding to the very aggressive response to my question about permission.
I think invulnerable saves for graviton is fine but cover might be pushing it.