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.

So, the Graviton rule against vehicles states that instead of rolling for armor penetration, you simply roll and apply the result. On a 1-5 nothing, and on a 6 the vehicle loses a Hull Point and is Immobilized.

Does this constitute a 'hit' that a vehicle cover save can be taken against? On the one hand, it isn't a Glancing or Penetrating hit, which are specifically required by the vehicle cover save rules. On the other hand... ignoring cover against vehicles would make this weapon even better, which isn't really necessary in my opinion.

I suppose a better question would be does it allow saves at all against vehicles? (Again because it does not inflict a glancing or penetrating hit).

I've got nothing invested in this one way or the other, but I'd like to see what Dakka thinks about the issue.

P.S. Hopefully this hasn't already been discussed. I looked through the forum but I couldn't find anything that matched.

It really could go either way basically:

yes: it gets a cover save as models that are targeted get one and vehicles save like models. Nor does grav weapons specifically deny them.

No: no cover nor invuln saves. Those work against glances, & pens. the grav weapon does neither.

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.

Is that with immobilised results and flickerfield?

 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.

While I generally agree, I hesitate to use the DE FAQ.

The interaction between Flickerfields (an invul save) and Dangerous terrain (which explicitly allows invul and armor but not cover) only gives a very weak precedent on the issue of cover vs. special effects. I wouldn't feel very confident using such a ruling against an SM player. Hopefully this issue can get an FAQ when the new SM one rolls around (among many other weird things, especially about grav weapons), but until then I expect I'm probably going to have to discuss it with my opponents.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Is that with immobilised results and flickerfield?

Flickerfield vs Dangerous Terrain (which of course has near identical wording as Graviton).

Thats what I was aiming at - the immobilised result you get, despite never rolling and never getting a hit

This becomes even messier than most people realize if you really dig into the rules.

The vehicles and cover section of the rulebook states that vehicles that are obscured by cover must take a cover save whenever they take a glancing or penetrating hit; which, has been said previously, raises the issue of the graviton rule because it does not specify whether it is a glance or pen.

However, take a look at the rules for shrouded, stealth, jink and evade. those rules flat out grant or improve/grant a cover save and make no mention of glancing or penetrating hits.

Combining those two, it would seem that RAW does not allow cover saves against graviton if the source of cover is obscurement (aka intervening terrain, etc), but cover saves based upon stealth and/or shrouded (and jink/evade) are unaffected by the graviton rule.

Forgive me if I'm way off, but don't grav weapons (or just the cannons maybe..) ignore cover?

It's been a while since I checked so I might be wrong but I swear I thought I read that the grav weapons ignore cover

No, grav weapons do not ignore cover.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:
This becomes even messier than most people realize if you really dig into the rules.

The vehicles and cover section of the rulebook states that vehicles that are obscured by cover must take a cover save whenever they take a glancing or penetrating hit; which, has been said previously, raises the issue of the graviton rule because it does not specify whether it is a glance or pen.

However, take a look at the rules for shrouded, stealth, jink and evade. those rules flat out grant or improve/grant a cover save and make no mention of glancing or penetrating hits.

Combining those two, it would seem that RAW does not allow cover saves against graviton if the source of cover is obscurement (aka intervening terrain, etc), but cover saves based upon stealth and/or shrouded (and jink/evade) are unaffected by the graviton rule.

I'd rather not open this can of worms. As previous YMDC threads have covered (no pun intended), this can alternatively be interpreted as vehicles only getting cover from obscurement, as other cover saves are not permitted to be taken against glancing or penetrating hits. But that's starting to get away from what I was generally asking at the beginning. You're right though, it's pretty messy.

For the sake of less headaches, my group generally just plays cover being equal regardless of source. So basically I'm only interested in whether Graviton as an effect bypasses cover or if we should treat it as a special kind of 'hit'.

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

HIWPI vehicles get cover saves.

This.

I would not be suprised if it gets faq'd. General agreement amoungst my local gamers is this as well. We get the impression the rai is that saves can be taken.

RAW no cover, RAI no cover

Its a pulse of gravity hitting the vehicle. There is no physical dmg to the hull and no bullet/lazer to dodge/block with cover.

The grav weapons damage a vechicle in a similar way as dangerous terrain tests, in other words, cause it to get stuck or crash.


THIWPI

Fluff wise I disagree.

Cover saves are not just 'something blocks the shot' though that would be the most likely explanation. They also represent those situations where the person firing the weapon are unable to get a clear bead on the target, and do not even pull the trigger to begin with. This is how it is explained when you look at the section detailing cover saves granted by shooting through intervening models. Like wise a lot of other weapons would have no problem burning/punching through many types of cover but they are are also not granted permission to ignore this type of cover. For example; A plasma cannon would bath a whole area in enough heat to burn through the long grass the target is hiding in... yet they still get a cover save.

As we do not know the exact reason behind the shot 'failing to wound due to cover' we can not simply state this type of weapon would not be stopped by cover.

jinx that is indeed 1 aspect of the cover save. Though cover saves in general are meant to cover all those things. pun intended

The only thing that matters:
RAW is no saves if the save is granted against glancing or penetrating hits.

RAI who gives a whatever we as players have not one clue thwe developers intended and therefor should have no relevancy in a forum discusing the rules. There is a list of rules for a reason.

If we could please make our points without throwing insults or calling people names it'll make this whole experience much nice for all concerned.

Thanks.

wargamer1985 wrote:
The only thing that matters:
RAW is no saves if the save is granted against glancing or penetrating hits.

RAI who gives a whatever we as players have not one clue thwe developers intended and therefor should have no relevancy in a forum discusing the rules. There is a list of rules for a reason.

At the end of the day the only thing that matters is how people want to play it when they reach the table. Sure, no one is a mind reader, but the HIWPI posts are an important insight into the community and is more helpful in general rather than just a statement of RAW, and sometimes HIWPI is generated from RAI.

wargamer1985 wrote:
The only thing that matters:
RAW is no saves if the save is granted against glancing or penetrating hits.

RAI who gives a whatever we as players have not one clue thwe developers intended and therefor should have no relevancy in a forum discusing the rules. There is a list of rules for a reason.

You do know that YMDC is not a strictly RAW forum correct? The RAW is what usually gets debated but RAI is arguably more important (and generally agreed upon) at the end of the day. A RAI argument is generally going to get you there with a TO or an opponent better than RAW technicalites. YMDC only requires you keep RAW debate and HIWPI or RAI debates separate.

Hello dead horse... prepare for thou continued beatings.

The answer to this is a lot more simple than what people realize. "Ignores Cover" is a special rule in the BRB. It is used to describe weapons that... umm... ignore cover. Does this weapon have the Ignores Cover special rule?

Why read into this when the obvious answer is so much more simple. I am sure this hasnt been FAQd because GW thinks this is bloody obvious.

Moridan wrote:
Hello dead horse... prepare for thou continued beatings.

The answer to this is a lot more simple than what people realize. "Ignores Cover" is a special rule in the BRB. It is used to describe weapons that... umm... ignore cover. Does this weapon have the Ignores Cover special rule?

Why read into this when the obvious answer is so much more simple. I am sure this hasnt been FAQd because GW thinks this is bloody obvious.

You're right it is bloody obvious. Vehicles get cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. Does Graviton cause a glancing or penetrating hit? No. Therefore you do not get a cover save.

You would however be able to use any invulnerable saves the vehicle may have

Only if you extend the DE FAQ

RAW: I don't believe vehicles can get a cover save against the Graviton.

The wording on pg 75 with regards to vehicles and cover saves says:
"If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it."

The Graviton weapon doesn't cause a glance or pen. Instead the vehicle is simply immobilized and loses an HP.

I'm not entirely sure how I would play this.

The wording of graviton seems pretty clear to avoid cover but at the same time it would have been trivial to simply give the weapon Ignores Cover and thereby be extremely clear on it... but, they didn't. Given some other areas with odd wording it's very hard to even guess at what was really intended.

I guess I'd end up going with whatever my opponent wanted to do. The weapons aren't exactly game changers anyway.

The "ignores cover" special rule is specifically worded against wounds only. Vehicles don't suffer wounds yet take cover saves in the same fashion as infantry do against wounds. This is what allows "ignores cover" to also ignore vehicles cover.

Infantry wounded by grav certainly get cover saves. As such and by extension, it can be inferred that vehicles get cover saves.

RAW - no cover. HIWPI - vehicles get cover. The weapon does not ignore cover and it would be unprecedented (I could be wrong) for a weapon to allow cover for infantry but not vehicles in the same scenario.

Yep, have to chuck my thoughts in.

The weapon doesnt have the Ignores Cover special rule because it doesnt ignore it, far from it.

The reason that vehicles do not get a cover save is because the parameters for a cover save have not been met, which is BOTH obscurement AND a glancing or penetrating hit. The second requirement is not met, therefore they do not get the cover save.

Against non-vehicle models, Grav weapons roll to wound, so the parameters for a cover save - obscurement and a wound taken- have been met, therefore they can take cover saves to their hearts content.

The important thing to note, is no, grav weapons absolutely do not ignore cover, its just a matter of parameters.

So what you are saying, by extension is that my jinking vehicles that get hit by weapons with the Ignore cover special rule still get cover saves?

I am interested to hear the tournament ruling on this.

So what you are saying, by extension is that my jinking vehicles that get hit by weapons with the Ignore cover special rule still get cover saves?

I am interested to hear the tournament ruling on this.

No, as ignores cover is exactly that. You may have all the parameters for a cover save, but ignores cover specifically disallows cover saves against weapons with that USR. Grav weapons do not trigger cover saves for vehicles because the conditions required for a cover save to be given to the vehicle are not met.

Eihnlazer wrote:
RAW no cover, RAI no cover

Its a pulse of gravity hitting the vehicle. There is no physical dmg to the hull and no bullet/lazer to dodge/block with cover.

The grav weapons damage a vechicle in a similar way as dangerous terrain tests, in other words, cause it to get stuck or crash.


THIWPI

If that's the case then why do non vehicles get cover saves?

If they wanted this weapon to ignore cover, it would have the ignores cover USR.

Also, as others have pointed out, the DE FAQ allows inv saves to be taken against failed dangerous terrain tests, which also do not cause a pen or glance.

IMO thats solid precedence against grav ignoring cover due to not being a glance/pen.

 BarBoBot wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
RAW no cover, RAI no cover

Its a pulse of gravity hitting the vehicle. There is no physical dmg to the hull and no bullet/lazer to dodge/block with cover.

The grav weapons damage a vechicle in a similar way as dangerous terrain tests, in other words, cause it to get stuck or crash.


THIWPI

If that's the case then why do non vehicles get cover saves?

If they wanted this weapon to ignore cover, it would have the ignores cover USR.

Also, as others have pointed out, the DE FAQ allows inv saves to be taken against failed dangerous terrain tests, which also do not cause a pen or glance.

IMO thats solid precedence against grav ignoring cover due to not being a glance/pen.

Thank you. It really is that simple.