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.

A Grav weapon does not roll for penetrating armor, instead you roll a dice for each hit and on a 6 the vehicle is immobilized...
1)Does this by pass cover saves, i mean saves are made after a wound or after a glancing/penetrating hit roll is made but prior to the damage result roll?
2) Does this bypass the eldar wave serpent shield that causes "penetrating hits" to become " glancing hits" ?

Again the Grav rule says, when resolving a hit against a vehicle, roll a d6 for each hit instead of rolling for armor penetration as normal. on a 1-5 nothing happens, but on a 6, the target suffers an 'immobilised' result and loses a single hull point.


thoughts?

I think every time you shoot at a vehicle with a Grav Weapon, you'll do what it says- roll to hit, and if you hit, roll a d6. You get a cover save vs. a glance or penetrating hit, not the hit itself. In this instance, you are not making an armor penetration roll. You never 'Glance' or 'Penetrate' the vehicle. You are rolling a "Grav Weapon Damage Roll" or whatever you want to call it.

Against the Eldar Wave Serpent- again, it's not an armor penetration roll, and the Grav Weapon doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit. On a 6, it causes an immobilized result and 1 Hull Point of damage.

This makes a lot of sense for the Grav-gun, so I would refuse to argue against it.

Imagine this logic instead for Grav-guns and Vehicles:
"Ha! My shiny energy shield protects me from being moved through the air!"
or
"Ha! my av14 protects my crew-members from being thrown around by inertia!"
or
"Ha! I cannot think of anymore that are not any more terrible than the last two!"

Need I go on?

Sounds about right.

I'm thinking of it as similar to a hypothetical Magneto vs Iron Man fight.

Freakishly durable 2+/3+ save for Iron Man.... but Magneto can just go "lol nope" and bypass all of it by dragging him down to immobilize him.

 Da Kommizzar wrote:
This makes a lot of sense for the Grav-gun, so I would refuse to argue against it.

Imagine this logic instead for Grav-guns and Vehicles:
"Ha! My shiny energy shield protects me from being moved through the air!"
or
"Ha! my av14 protects my crew-members from being thrown around by inertia!"
or
"Ha! I cannot think of anymore that are not any more terrible than the last two!"

Need I go on?

Common sense/Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing...

Tenets of YMDC wrote:3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument. - The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

I would wait for the book to be released, and then the inevitable week 1 FAQ to fix it. There are no weapons in 40k that currently bypass cover saves without explicitly mentioning it. Until the book comes out and then clarification on the issue I'd stick with taking cover saves.

 Da Kommizzar wrote:
This makes a lot of sense for the Grav-gun, so I would refuse to argue against it.

Imagine this logic instead for Grav-guns and Vehicles:
"Ha! My shiny energy shield protects me from being moved through the air!"
or
"Ha! my av14 protects my crew-members from being thrown around by inertia!"
or
"Ha! I cannot think of anymore that are not any more terrible than the last two!"

Need I go on?

Fluff wise, your description on how the graviton gun affects its target is totally wrong.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Graviton_gun

The only reference that resolves this is in the BRB on page 97 "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, ..."

The grav gun doesn't produce glancing or penetrating hits, so no cover save.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
I would wait for the book to be released, and then the inevitable week 1 FAQ to fix it. There are no weapons in 40k that currently bypass cover saves without explicitly mentioning it. Until the book comes out and then clarification on the issue I'd stick with taking cover saves.

There's no Strength profile for the weapon, so there's no glancing or penetrating hit to take a cover save against.

I look at it similarly to the way you take a cover save against a failed dangerous terrain test. You don't, since there is no glancing or penetrating hit that causes the vehicle to become immobilized.

It even says that you roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling to penetrate.

There was bound to be something that helps against serpent spam

pk1 wrote:
The only reference that resolves this is in the BRB on page 97 "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, ..."

The grav gun doesn't produce glancing or penetrating hits, so no cover save.

The issue is current a loophole at the moment, the quote you have stated does not resolve the issue as we need clarification as to whether the hit 'count as' a penetrating hit. It still removes hull points as a standard penetrating hit would, and vs infantry the gun allows saves as normal. As it does not specifically mention disallowing cover saves vs vehicles I would not try and and claim it.

Most likely it will follow standard rules, and is just another oversight of GW when wording their new codex.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
The issue is current a loophole at the moment, the quote you have stated does not resolve the issue as we need clarification as to whether the hit 'count as' a penetrating hit. It still removes hull points as a standard penetrating hit would, and vs infantry the gun allows saves as normal. As it does not specifically mention disallowing cover saves vs vehicles I would not try and and claim it.

Seems pretty obvious that by detailing the process in which you resolve Graviton hits against Vehicles (after hitting, roll a d6, 1-5 nothing happens, on a 6 the vehicle is immobilized and loses a hull point) that it is avoiding the entire issue of cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. Cover saves are taken against glances and pens, not against hits. Also seems perfectly within the fluff to have a weapon that somehow controls gravity stop a vehicle in its tracks simply by making it much heavier than it was designed to be. Skimmers crash to the ground, rhino suspensions collapse, yada yada.

If the Daemon Codex shows us everything, FAQ's aren't always "automatic".

HIWPI: You get cover

RAW: Strictly speaking, unless you have sort of ability that specifically negates hits, or attacks (DE clone field is the only such thing I can think of) you can't take a cover or invulerable save against it as it hits you then gets you to roll on a specific table to see if you inflinct some damage (in this case, 1HP and immoblise/weapon destroy).

To go even further on invul saves, would you allow a vehicle to with an invul to take it against a failed dangerous terrain result (which also results in a straight 1HP and immobilisation)?

 dracpanzer wrote:

Seems pretty obvious that by detailing the process in which you resolve Graviton hits against Vehicles (after hitting, roll a d6, 1-5 nothing happens, on a 6 the vehicle is immobilized and loses a hull point) that it is avoiding the entire issue of cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. Cover saves are taken against glances and pens, not against hits. Also seems perfectly within the fluff to have a weapon that somehow controls gravity stop a vehicle in its tracks simply by making it much heavier than it was designed to be. Skimmers crash to the ground, rhino suspensions collapse, yada yada.

If the Daemon Codex shows us everything, FAQ's aren't always "automatic".

Fluff does not equal rules unless a rule is made to represent them.

So far the argument against cover saves comes from the specific wording that cover can only be taken vs ranged glancing and penetrating hits.

The effects of the grav gun are the first weapon in the game that to my knowledge could cause confusion with this rule as it does not specifically state a penetrating hit. However it is in practicality a penetrating hit with a guaranteed immobilized result on the damage table. There is nothing else in the rules which would suggest that it ignores cover.

Unless otherwise stated in an faq, I would play it as allowing cover saves. As these are the existing rules.

However I can see why people who read into the exact wording would play it otherwise, and to me this is just as justifiable until an faq is released.

Nothing in Games Workshop rules wording is ever obvious.

Looking at the rule, there is no cover save, it seems to bypass that stage of the process entirely.

It seems to work exactly like rolling a one for difficult terrain.

The grav gun affects the vehicle with an instant immobilized result and a hull point is correspondingly lost.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Maybe they meant for it to be something else, but for now, that's how it reads.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

So far the argument against cover saves comes from the specific wording that cover can only be taken vs ranged glancing and penetrating hits.

Correct, because that is the only way to receive a cover save from a ranged shooting attack against a vehicle.

The effects of the grav gun are the first weapon in the game that to my knowledge could cause confusion with this rule as it does not specifically state a penetrating hit.

A weapon, yes. But as I mentioned earlier, there are mechanics in the rules that cause immobilization without the need to roll for penetration. It just happens, and doesn't allow a cover save to be taken.

However it is in practicality a penetrating hit with a guaranteed immobilized result on the damage table.

It is not a penetrating hit in any way. Unless I'm mistaken, you can't penetrate or glance with a weapon that doesn't have a strength (don't know if there's any other weapons out there that cause pens or glances that don't have a strength value).

There is nothing else in the rules which would suggest that it ignores cover.

Agreed, because it isn't ignoring cover. It's simply removing a hull point and causing the vehicle to become immobilized.

Unless otherwise stated in an faq, I would play it as allowing cover saves. As these are the existing rules.

That's fine, but there's nothing to allow a cover save to be taken since the criteria for a vehicle to receive a cover save has not been met.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

If the Daemon Codex shows us everything, FAQ's aren't always "automatic".

Heck with the Daemon dex, Im waiting on the Eldar dex!

 Krellnus wrote:
HIWPI: You get cover
RAW: Strictly speaking, unless you have sort of ability that specifically negates hits, or attacks (DE clone field is the only such thing I can think of) you can't take a cover or invulerable save against it as it hits you then gets you to roll on a specific table to see if you inflinct some damage (in this case, 1HP and immoblise/weapon destroy).
To go even further on invul saves, would you allow a vehicle to with an invul to take it against a failed dangerous terrain result (which also results in a straight 1HP and immobilisation)?

I'm not sure, I will just wait on the intent of the ability.

Wouldn't this be like a Haywire-attack?
And does the current wording mean it does not benefit from Tankhunter?

I would argue it is not like a haywire attack as it is specifically a hit at S:1 and a chance to inflict a pen or glancing hit, which you are allowed to take saves against.

And yes I would agree that the current wording means that it does not benefit from Tank hunters.

Haywire: "When a weapon with this special rule hits a vehicle, roll a D6 rather than rolling Armour Penetration normally. <insert table>"

Graviton: "When resolving a hit against a vehicle, roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling for armour penetration as normal. On a 1-5 nothing happens, but on a 6, the target suffers an lmmobilised result and loses a single Hull Point."

Seems quite identical to me:
-Hit
-Roll a D6 instead of armour penetration
-Consult table

Kangodo wrote:
Haywire: "When a weapon with this special rule hits a vehicle, roll a D6 rather than rolling Armour Penetration normally. <insert table>"

Graviton: "When resolving a hit against a vehicle, roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling for armour penetration as normal. On a 1-5 nothing happens, but on a 6, the target suffers an lmmobilised result and loses a single Hull Point."

Seems quite identical to me:
-Hit
-Roll a D6 instead of armour penetration
-Consult table

But the results given cause glancing (roll of 2-5) and penetrating (roll of a 6) hits. Which meet the criteria of giving a cover save to a vehicle that is obscured from the firers PoV. All haywire weapons have a strength value as well, giving merit to having to roll a glance or penetrate (same with a Gauss weapon causing a glance on a 6).

Grav weapons do not cause a glancing or penetrating hit. They simply remove a hull point and immobilize the vehicle.

Aah, true.
Too bad, otherwise we could use those rules as a guideline.

pk1 wrote:
The only reference that resolves this is in the BRB on page 97 "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, ..."

The grav gun doesn't produce glancing or penetrating hits, so no cover save.

Thank you for pointing this out, this really does some it all up.


FYI i was reading the entry from the actual new codex when i started this post.

Also this is nothing like haywire, rolls on a table from its ability that still either causes a glancing HIT or penetrating HIT

Necron Gauss Weapon causes a glancing HIT on a 6 for armor pen.

Both haywire and Gauss are causing glancing or penetrating results, armor pen attempts.

Graviton causes an effect after a HIT, not a penetrating hit that is auto immobilise.. just an effect called "immobilised"

I guess with those rules, Vehicles would not get a cover save, wave serpeant save, and also do not benefit from tank hunter.

The way its worded you dont get a save.

As suppositioned earlier, its basically the same thing as a dangerous terrain test for the vehicle. The difference being instead of the vehicle rolling a 1 and failing the test, the shooter is rolling a 6 to pass the test to immobilize the vehicle.

Essentially there are 5 steps to shooting at a vehicle.
1. Roll to hit.
2. Roll armour penetration.
3. Roll for cover saves if obscured.
4. Roll on damage table.
5. Apply result.

Grav weapons skip steps 2-3, and have their own version of 4.

The vehicles armour has neither been glanced or penetrated, so cover saves do not apply.

Well...there is this from the DEldar FAQ, which I think at leasts sets a precedent:

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

 Happyjew wrote:
Well...there is this from the DEldar FAQ, which I think at leasts sets a precedent:

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

That's an invulnerable save correct? (I don't have the DE codex )

I suppose that helps answer if invuln saves could be taken, if that's the save granted by flickerfields.

Yes it is an invul save... but now you are comparing a different rule, grav gun does not say take a "dangerous terrain test"

That was being used a point of reference, which now cant be used as a point of reference.

Lets focus on the rules as written for grav gun rules.

As i said, it can be used as precedent.

Relevant information on my claim -
1. On a 6, the Grav Gun causes Immobilisation (I'm assuming including Hull Point loss).
2. On a 1, Dangerous Terrain causes Immobilisation (including Hull Point Loss).
3. Cover saves are taken when a vehicle suffers a penetrating/glancing hit.
4. Invulnerable saves blah blah blah, same as above.
5. Per the Dark Eldar FAQ, Invulnerable saves can be taken against Immobilisation from Dangerous Terrain.
6. Dangerous Terrain specifically states it only allows Invulnerable and Armour saves.

Since you could normally take a save against vehicle damage that does not go through the normal armour penetration process, you would logically be able to take a cover save against the Immobilisation effect of Grav Guns.

Tsilber wrote:
Yes it is an invul save... but now you are comparing a different rule, grav gun does not say take a "dangerous terrain test"

That was being used a point of reference, which now cant be used as a point of reference.

Lets focus on the rules as written for grav gun rules.

It can be used as a point of reference since the save in question is in regards to cover. Not an invuln, since cover and invuln saves are two different things.

All I was saying, was that it would likely make sense to allow an invuln save to be taken against a grav weapon (which I think would need an FAQ as well).

The question on if it can get a cover save, I believe it cannot -- based on all the previous posts about why it wouldn't get a cover save and because there is no (known) precedent dealing with cover saves vs. something that causes immobilization/hull point loss without rolling to glance or penetrate.