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.

 FlingitNow wrote:


But there's no point arguing this. We agree on the RaW, whether or not you admit it we both also know the clear RaI. So you're just arguing for the sake of it or trying to justify cheating neither of which interests me.

Wouldn't cheating mean he was breaking the RAW? Or do you consider following the rules as cheating?

Just because you don't like the RAW, doesn't mean you can call someone a cheater for following the rules, especially when your only argument is how the rules may be intended. At least with RAW, it's clear. RAI, is based purely on conjecture.

Bottom line is, until it gets an FAQ (IF it ever gets one), you should discuss it with the player or TO before the game/tournament begins.

Our group have discussed both sides, and have all agreed that for now, RAW, grav weaponry negates the cover save of vehicles.

But not Invulnerable saves?

Specifically, there is a FAQ or errata that mentions vehicles get invunerable saves againgst failed difficult terrain tests, so allowing invunerable saves againgst grav damage, which is of the same type, makes perfect sense.

Wouldn't cheating mean he was breaking the RAW? Or do you consider following the rules as cheating?

No cheating is intentionally breaking the ruled without your opponents consent. It has little to do with RaW.

Just because you don't like the RAW, doesn't mean you can call someone a cheater for following the rules, especially when your only argument is how the rules may be intended. At least with RAW, it's clear. RAI, is based purely on conjecture.

I haven't called him a cheater nor will I. The rules here are very clear willful ignorance of that doesn't change it. Because if we're playing RaWhammer the game breaks very quickly. I take it you believe that space marines with helmets on can't shoot or assault anything ever? That FMCs don't have relentless or smash? That Overlords with 2+ saves on chariots are invulnerable to any non-AP2 attacks in close combat? Plus all the other RaW nonsense. Sometimes RaI is not clear at all and RaW can be a great way to interpret the rules in a consistent manner and to cover areas where RaI is not clear. Here RaI is 100% clear you know it and I know it so what's the point arguing?

Bottom line is, until it gets an FAQ (IF it ever gets one), you should discuss it with the player or TO before the game/tournament begins.

You can do and come up with a house rule or you could just play by the clear RaI. Unless you're claiming you discuss the above rules with your opponent too before each game?

Our group have discussed both sides, and have all agreed that for now, RAW, grav weaponry negates the cover save of vehicles.

That's great that your group have cone up with that house rule. Do you allow invulnerable saves against grav weaponry?

Eihnlazer wrote:
Specifically, there is a FAQ or errata that mentions vehicles get invunerable saves againgst failed difficult terrain tests, so allowing invunerable saves againgst grav damage, which is of the same type, makes perfect sense.

Specifically, it actually says you are allowed to take it against the result.

The key thing is, the result is damage that isn't from a glancing or penetrating hit, and you may take a save against it.

While this example is a specific wargear and invulnerable save, there isn't a separation of 'save mechanic' in this case, especially as the Grav weapons come from a 'shooting attack' which Cover saves are identical to invulnerable or armour saves for (barring differences concerning AP, Ignore Cover or other specific modifiers.)

However to me, the telling thing is that non-vehicle models such as Monstrous Creatures can take a cover save with no problem, so it's bizarre that it would only ignore cover on vehicles so I regard Grav weapons ignoring cover an easter egg.

Nick - I wold advise against trying to argue Flings view on the rules, as they believe the rulebook specifying THE RULES isnt actually where the rules of the game are found. Instead we have to divine them from our best guess at the intent of the writer, even in cases like this where the written rule mechanic is 100% functional and 100% clear, we should instead use something else. Because.

Our group allows invulnerable and cover, mainly because it would be usual for a weapon to allow these saves. We dont, however, pretend the RAI is "clear" on this, as we are not (that) closely linked to the main writer of this book (just one of them)

Our group allows invulnerable and cover, mainly because it would be usual for a weapon to allow these saves. We dont, however, pretend the RAI is "clear" on this, as we are not (that) closely linked to the main writer of this book (just one of them)

You see this i am fine with. Your gaming group can do whatever it pleases as how you all want to play it isnt necesarrily the way it is stated.

I only have a problem with people who state "This is obviously how it was intended" because they have absolutely no knowledge on what was intended or not.

I only have a problem with people who state "This is obviously how it was intended" because they have absolutely no knowledge on what was intended or not.

Where as I have a problem who claim willful ignorance because it is impossible to understand what has been written beyond the purely literal...

The attitude that if some says "can you tell me the time please" the appropriate response is "yes". The inconsistency because not only do they not believe that the GW design team designed the rules and that RaW must be adhered to but also RaW can be ignored when it suits them. Because I'm certain these people don't play "relentless smash" or you need eyes to draw LoS etc...

It is the exact opposite of willful ignorance.

I have looked at the Graviton rule and i have looked at the rules pertaining to vehicle saves. Through deductive reasoning, the reasoning of which I have ready posted in this thread, I have come to the conclusion that satisfies me. I have speculated on intent (only speculate, as we arent Cruddace). My conclusion is that no saves are allowed, since I feel it is the only way to explain why the rule was written to sidestep the glance/pen system so directly.

You seem to think I am trying to twist things to what I want, when I have shown perfect reasoning as to why i have reached the conclusion I have.

You, on the other hand, have just said they get saves "because it is clear". To you it may seem clear. Care to elaborate in concise english why you have reached YOUR conclusion?

While it is not clear (RAW is clear), I think the intent is that they would still get saves.

The wording for graviton is near identical to dangerous terrain (main difference being what result leads to immobilisation).
The FAQ clarifies that vehicles can take invuln saves against dangerous terrain. Why not cover? I'll get to that in a moment. Since a near identical mechanism for damaging vehicles (without causing a glancing/penetrating hit) allows invuln saves, logically other mechanism that work similarly would also allow it. That covers invuln saves. What about cover saves? Cover saves function exactly like invuln saves with the exception that there are ways to ignore cover saves (such as template weapons). Logically if something allowsan invuln save, and does not specify otherwise (like dangerous terrain does), then if a model has a cover save it can use it.

This is of course pure speculation, and is not RAW. It could very will be that vehicles are not supposed to get a save.

Also the weapon allows for non-vehicle models to have a cover save. It isn't a blanket "no-cover" weapon, so there is still plenty of room for interpretation.

I agree RaW is clear, but intent is not.
I'd certainly allow a cover save in my games.

My conclusion is based on the fact that Grav weapons don't explicitly tell me they ignore cover or invuns. They don't ignore cover or invuns for anything that is not a vehicle they don't evenignore ccover for vehicles must bypass it because they do something slightly different to the normal pen rule. I assume all the rules hold unless given explicit exemption. The Grav weapons interrupt the normal shooting process and do 1 step differently I assume all other steps remain unchanged. I look at how tightly the vehicles saves rules are written and see massive holes in them even after FaQs to solve some of those issues (like invulnerable saves doing nothing for vehicles). This tells me that the rules around saves of vehicles are not precisely written and nothing in the grav rules explicitly tells me that saves do not apply so it is clear they do.

I could make all the arguments you have made for all the RaW broken rules. I do not believe for 1 second that you can't see the clear intent. Like many on YMDC you like to hide behind RaW and claim willful ignorance on clear intent. I've never met someone in person that makes that claim when asked. Nor have I ever met a person that doesn't believe the GW design team designed the ruled yet this forum is full of such people. Im going to assume you're in the RaW = The Rules crowd that believe only people with magical powers can understand normal human communication. If so why bother discussing this further.

Unfortunately, RAI will never mean anything until we have telepathy as a skill. We can only follow what is written. Anything else is making stuff up.

Unfortunately, RAI will never mean anything until we have telepathy as a skill. We can only follow what is written. Anything else is making stuff up

FlingitNow wrote:Im going to assume you're in the RaW = The Rules crowd that believe only people with magical powers can understand normal human communication.

Called it. So I'm interested do you allow Space Marines with Helmets to shoot and assault stuff? What do you think the special rule "relentless smash" does for FMC? Etc?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Unfortunately, RAI will never mean anything until we have telepathy as a skill. We can only follow what is written. Anything else is making stuff up

FlingitNow wrote:Im going to assume you're in the RaW = The Rules crowd that believe only people with magical powers can understand normal human communication.

Called it. So I'm interested do you allow Space Marines with Helmets to shoot and assault stuff? What do you think the special rule "relentless smash" does for FMC? Etc?

Not familiar with those quandries. Are you an Eldar player? Those are the ones mostly claiming that Wave Serpents get cover saves against grav. Even with the rule in place, Eldar still dominate. I don't see the problem. It's pathetic that a mechanic that springs from perhaps misworded rules are the only thing giving marines a chance vs Eldar, and you want to take that away.

Not familiar with those quandries. Are you an Eldar player? Those are the ones mostly claiming that Wave Serpents get cover saves against grav. Even with the rule in place, Eldar still dominate. I don't see the problem. It's pathetic that a mechanic that springs from perhaps misworded rules are the only thing giving marines a chance vs Eldar, and you want to take that away.

I'm a marine and Eldar player. I have 8 Grav Centurions in my marine army (and only 3 Wave Serpent in my Eldar army). What's pathetic is people needing to deliberately misinterpret rules because they feel that is the only way they can win.

Those issues are all RaW. Check the Special Rules section for FMCs in the BrB and you'll notice one of their special rules listed is Relentless Smash which does nothing. It also means they don't have relentless or smash.

Whilst the other issue means you don't know how the basic line of sight rules work. Check them out, if you believe it takes magical powers to understand anything beyond the purely literal read those rules and notice how only unhelmeted humans can ever draw line of sight....

I'm guessing you're also constantly in awe of the telepaths near you that answer the question "can you tell me the time?" By looking at their watch and saying "half past ten". Wondering how they ever knew that the person wanted to know the time rather than enquiring on their ability to tell it...

It's amusing that he cites 2 rules with glaringly obvious intent and which no one plays by the actual rules to argue that his version if intent must be correct (hint - it's not even close to "must be").

Relentless smash is an obvious omission of a comma. There's no legitimate way to argue otherwise.
Similar to Space marines in hats - no legitimate argument to say they can't fire.
There is a legitimate argument to not allow cover saves against Grav on a vehicle, however. It's a very grey area.

I see this rule as just as obvious. The fact it bypasses invulnerable saves (not just cover saves as is often cited) and only in vehicles and due to semantics makes it clear to me, as we know the rules in this area (vehicle saves) aren't written very precisely.

I'm not saying that my interpretation of RaI is the only one that matters I'm saying that I don't believe anyone that says their interpretation of RaI is different. I don't see it as a grey area at all, just that people want it to be a grey area.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I
I'm not saying that my interpretation of RaI is the only one that matters I'm saying that I don't believe anyone that says their interpretation of RaI is different. I don't see it as a grey area at all, just that people want it to be a grey area.

So far when looking at your posts you are saying that your interpretation of RAI is correct. Noone can disprove that anyway but you cant prove that it is correct either.

It is - in fact - a grey area. Its not like anyone in the world would play that marines cant shoot because of helmets but im fairly certain there are people playing that grav ignores saves on vehicles. Dont get me wrong i dont like that interpretation and our club doesnt play it that way and im more than happy if GW resolves the problem to allow such saves but still theres a very strong argument with RAW support for it. I wouldnt force that on a stranger. If someone insists on ignoring saves - fine lets play it that way. I dont use grav and i dont care in a friendly. In a tournament you normally know in advance how it will be played and can adapt accordingly.

Off Topic: I do always laugh at the people that try to say a 'helmet' doesn't have eyes...

I always want to ask, can you prove to me that the model, as is, is even wearing a helmet? as I see two places that resemble eyes on the models head, therefore I can only assume that those are the eyes. I also want to ask them to cite a rule page that says what is classed as a 'head' and a 'helmet' and the difference between the two.

On Topic:

@Fling, its all well and good saying that to you the rules are clear and that it 'must' work this way, but your explanation is currently at best how you would play it.

you cannot turn around and say that your interpretation of what could very well be a grey area is the correct one.

all we can do is go off what is written, in this instance it is actually clear that vehicles do not get cover or invulnerable saves as the RAW stands, how you want to house rule it, it your business but that doesn't change the RAW.

and no, it doesn't ignore cover or invulnerable saves vs anything with a T value simply because it is rolling to wound against them and thus triggers the allowance of saves, the fact that they are ap2 means no armour saves can ever be taken against them (pending future releases with special rules that make shooting attacks vs them ap - ) .

I can also see many reasons why it would effect vehicles differently to non-vehicles, for a start a tank would have more mass than infantry, the cover saves for infantry reflect the cover getting in the way/the infantry taking cover from incoming shots, vehicles are just not fast enough to go to ground for example.

No I'm saying that everyone agrees with my interpretation of RaI whether or not they admit it on the interwebs. A subtle but important difference.

Just because people want it to work the way RaW works does not make them have a strong RaI argument. Just because people play a rule one way or want it played that way does not mean they have a foot to stand on. Like people claiming BA Scouts can't make a Scout Redeployment because they has the Scouts special rule not the Scout Special rule. People claiming in 5th before the FaQ that Shrike couldn't give infiltrate to a squad that didn't have infiltrate (I've come across people who played it that way yet did not believe it was the intention and agreed the intention was clear) heck the issue has re-arisen this edition (and thrown up a genuine grey area of who can give infiltrate to their unit before that unit is deployed).

well...I consider myself to be a part of everyone and I do not agree with your RAI, I actually think the RAW is the intent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
typo's are also not a valid example.

you are the one that is trying to take the RAW and twist it in a way that suits your needs, you in this instance want a save for your vehicles, the RAW does not allow this.

in no way am I twisting the RAW to formulate an advantage that has not been given by the rule, the advantage is that the 1/6 chance (with re-roll on cents) is effective vs a vehicle, 5/6 times it is useless.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
also the infiltration part was very clear RAI, this on the other hand is not.

we simply do not know if the intent was or was not to prevent vehicles getting a save, but until a FAQ drops, we must follow the RAW (or house rule it at your local) to operate differently and ensure that any new players are aware.

Yes, the subtle difference is you are calling people who disagree with your idea of RAI liars. Rule one maybe?

 FlingitNow wrote:
No I'm saying that everyone agrees with my interpretation of RaI whether or not they admit it on the interwebs. A subtle but important difference.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABABAHAHAH. No. I'm not lying to make myself look good. Reported for trolling.

Our group agrees that Grav Weapons RAW do not allow cover or invul saves. We also agree that GW is very bad at writing rules in the first place and have decided to reject RAW in favor of allowing vehicles both saves. RAW = no saves for vehicles, HIWPI = both cover and invul saves for vehicles.

rigeld2 wrote:
Similar to Space marines in hats

I laughed at imagining this and this is what I pictured:

Nevermind, misremembered.

Yeah, that is something they need to FAQ.

I guess it makes sense, in a odd sort of way. It's not so much a projectile as a burst of gravity.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
Our group agrees that Grav Weapons RAW do not allow cover or invul saves. We also agree that GW is very bad at writing rules in the first place and have decided to reject RAW in favor of allowing vehicles both saves. RAW = no saves for vehicles, HIWPI = both cover and invul saves for vehicles.

rigeld2 wrote:
Similar to Space marines in hats

I laughed at imagining this and this is what I pictured:

exhalting this simply because the pic made me chuckle