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.

 arinnoor wrote:
*sigh* Again and again it seems to go on at this point I'm more tried then anything else.

I've explained my reasoning time after time and all that has been said is I'm wrong cause you apply the result. Well that may be the case, but then when would that rule come into play hm? When would you apply an immobilization effect, not be specifically told to lose a hull point, and therefore not lose it? I read Grav and see it does apply an immobilization, it (Grav, not anything else), does not say you lose an additional hull point merely the one for a successful grav. Personally I don't see why grav needs to be so good and find my interpretation to balance it out between the other specials, but again I seem to be in the minority. Oh well until an official word comes out I guess it doesn't matter much what was said here, but at least my goals were met in seeing how it was received in the community. Locally I'll do as always, check with the TO.

And again - as has been pointed out more than once - Drop Pods are a specific example of suffering an Immobilize result without suffering a hull point.

Grav guns specify a hull point. Immobilize specifies an additional hull point. Which part isn't specified?

Rorschach9 wrote:
Personal opinion on Grav being "so good" varies too. There are just as many who think Grav is worthless except in very specific circumstances, which would very much balance out how good it may be.

You'll have to try quite hard indeed to convince me that something which can take down a Land Raider in three success isn't good. Heck a full squad with a lot luck can take down any super heavy you're likely to field in a normal game.

However as to the thread at large, as I've stated I feel otherwise and that the wording would indicate something else, but that is merely an intent to go off of not RAW. Now by RAW sure I guess you all are right, don't doubt how you come to the conclusion, just believe that isn't what it supposed to mean, just how I don't believe Drop Pods should just auto die in this edition. So I'll just pass it on to my TO and wait for NOVA's ruling.

The rule being mentioned clarifies that effects from the vehicle damage table do not themselves cause the removal of a hull point, and that hull points are only removed when it is explicitly stated.

For example:

An Ork Zapp Gun always Crew Shakes the target it hits. Does it take a hull point when this effect is applied, or 2 hull points if it is accompanied by a glance\pen? No, it does not, as it does not explicitly say so.


A Grav Gun hits a vehicle that is already immobilized:

-Does the vehicle lose a hull point for being hit by the grav gun? Yes, it explicitly says so.
-Does the vehicle lose a hull point for receiving the immobilized result? No, it does not explicitly say so.
-Does the vehicle lose a hull point for receiving the immobilized result, because the vehicle is already immobilized? Yes, it explicitly says so.

Without the rule you have been referring to, some would\could argue that the first grav gun hit deals 2 hull points, and any additional hit deal 3 hull points, or that a zapp gun always deal one hull point etc.

3 melta gun hits kill a landraider on average.

on average you would have to get 9-10 hits with the grav amp giving you rerolls.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Good thing thats not the correct way to read it.


Grav already got a nerf with the allowance to take cover saves againgst it. It certainly didnt need any more nerfs.

I don't think nerf is an appropriate word. I've only ever had one player try to argue grav weapons ignoring cover who attempted to do it a second time in 7th edition.

It eventually ended with the gaming store house ruling that it was affected by cover. I mean, honestly, people thought a weapon was so good that it should ignore intervening terrain, a flyer jink / evade roll, night fighting and all manners of psychic powers and buffs just because of a loophole that someone found? It's a paragon of RAI beating RAW.

Whether RAI or not, vehicles can take cover now for 100% certainty.


That is definately a nerf to the weapon system. They went from a decent way to take out wave serpents and fliers to being almost useless againgst them.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Whether RAI or not, vehicles can take cover now for 100% certainty.


That is definately a nerf to the weapon system. They went from a decent way to take out wave serpents and fliers to being almost useless againgst them.

I ran grav weapons quite often. Was one of the first to have Tiggy and 3cents jump out of a Raven and murder things. I run grav bikes in my white scar list. Never have I ever heard anyone in an actual game insist that grav weapons (without "ignore cover") some how ignored cover because of retro rule grammar. That was a TFG move from the word go. I'm glad they cleared it up, but no one should ever been playing that way.