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.

Hey dakka, i was reviewing the rules on grav weaponry and stumbled across this..

Lets say a grav cannon or grav gun hits a skimmer and causes an Immobilised result on a roll of 6.

Since the codex says the weapon doesn't roll for armor penetration , but instead rolls d6 regardless of AV, does the skimmer get a jink cover save?

Cover saves are taken against penetrating and glancing hits (so roll to hit,roll penetration , if yes, than roll save) and grav weapons cause neither.

Can anyone provide me any good feedback on this? Am i missing something or has this been addressed in any FAQ's? I cannot find it.

Under a strict RAW reading, vehicles do not benefit from cover saves from grav weapons.

That being said, I think the RAI couldn't be clearer, and have never once told an opponent they couldn't have a cover save from my grav cannons.

Yea thats pretty much what i was thinking as well. I just wanted to make sure no one has made a specific claim on the subject that i wasn't aware of. Thanks man

Vehicles technically don't get invul saves either, though on second read I can't find where the rulebook even deals with invul saves for vehicles. We are just to assume they work like cover I guess. Is there a section that talks about it?

It was addressed via Errata:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

They had to FAQ Invulnerable saves for vehicles. First page of the BRB FAQ.

This subject has been argued over in great length on Dakka before. General consensus is RAW no saves for cover, but a lot of people would give them cover ( myself withstanding).

Ah, yeah seems grav RAW ignore invul too.

We have a guy that insists on it ignoring saves, a few that roll off each game and go with whatever the dice say, and some guys that insist it allows saves. Really kind of helter-skelter here, until some major tournaments start siding one way or another.

Oddly enough there aren't a lot of marine players around here. Our local league just started up and there's DA, SW, lots of xenos and tyranids in it, no C:SM

yea, the RAW is actually pretty clear on it in that no saves are permitted due to the lack of the triggering factor (i.e. the roll to pen)


it is most likey going to be one thing that will make the FAQ when it eventually drops....

Thanks guys, I appreciate the feedback.

Cover Saves are Cover "saving throws" so after reading Saving Throws and that that models best saving throw is used when rolling to stop a wound or in this case a hull point. the shooting attacks creates a wound pool on the tank that must be dealt with, hence forth it is no different then a necron shooting attack that glances on a 6, just worded different. i just looked into this and to me its clear, the only one you cant save this the auto hull point loss after the first 2 hits from the grav guns causing immobilized results.
Now this is open for interpretation and of course i dont have the necron dex in front of me, but i think it is worded on a roll of 6 the target is takes glancing hit, or something along those lines and that in turn now causes the loss of a hull point (which is the only way you can use a cover save) that triggers a save. So when a grav gun reads on a roll of 6 the target "suffers a hull point" and immobilized result that means it should be treated the same as the necrons ability that is indeed granted a save.

If anyone I am wrong on any of this feel free to let me know, because i would like to be corrected before i got the store next time. lol have to remember not to run tanks when fighting SM

You don't create wound pulls for tanks. Necron gauss specifically says they cause glancing hits, not that they just remove a hull point.

The grav weapon does not say it causes a pen or a glance, and those are the only requirements for a vehicle to make a save. This is why vehicles get no saves against grav

You get cover unless it specifically states "ignores cover"

Inksoul wrote:
saving throw is used when rolling to stop a wound or in this case a hull point.

You'd don't get a cover save against loss of Hull Points.
You get one against a Pen or Glance.
That's the crux of the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 namiel wrote:
You get cover unless it specifically states "ignores cover"

Sadly not actually true.

People should really read the Graviton rule, then re-read the cover saves for vehicles rules before they comment so authoritatively

Grav weapons aren't particularly effective vs vehicles even when vehicles don't get saves.

Grav cannons are pretty nice against them though. 3 cannons, 15 shots with rerolls for the vehicle effect. I reliably kill 3 hull points when i fire them.

Don't the grav-amp rules reference rerolling to pen enemy armor? Seems kind of like they were expecting us to treat the grav-damage roll against vehicles like it was a roll to pen, meaning it should get a cover save.

Nope, they specifically say to reroll its effect on vehicles.

It in no way implies it is glancing or penning. It says to roll the vehicle effect INSTEAD of standard penetration rolls.

Grav cannons are pretty nice against them though. 3 cannons, 15 shots with rerolls for the vehicle effect. I reliably kill 3 hull points when i fire them.

You should average just over 5 HPs (each cannon should get just over one '6') before cover/invun saves.

Granted RaW is that Grav weapons bypass cover and invulnerable saves. But RaW is also dumb in lots of over ways (models without visible eyes, including models who's eyes would be behind a helmet like marines etc, can't shoot or charge anything ever). If the rules were that they ignored cover and invulnerable saves they would have told you that not relied on you working out semantics to make them bypass the process a process that for invuns doesn't even work for vehicles anyway (whilst vehicles due to errata can take invuns against glancing and penetrating hits passing it only stops you from suffering any wounds that glancing or penetrating hit caused).

I personally look at damage from grav weaponry as the same kind of damage a failed dangerous terrain test deals.

So i do not allow cover, but do allow invun saves.

If they wanted the saves to work, why did they word it so that they specificaly bypass glance and lens?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If they wanted the saves to work, why did they word it so that they specificaly bypass glance and pens?

So i do not allow cover, but do allow invun saves.

No the only argument that makes them ignore cover makes them also ignore invuns which is why the ignore cover interpretation is dumb.

f they wanted the saves to work, why did they word it so that they specificaly bypass glance and pens?

Because they write rules sloppily? Are you claiming you believe that Space Marines with helmets can't shoot or charge anything? Are you claiming that invulnerable saves do nothing for vehicles against any weapons?

No no, it specifically 100% Tells you, in no uncertain terms, to not follow standard methods of vehicle damage (rolling for glancing and penetrating hits). It goes to GREAT pains to seperate the two. How can you possibly think it is shonky writing?

No no, it specifically 100% Tells you, in no uncertain terms, to not follow standard methods of vehicle damage (rolling for glancing and penetrating hits). It goes to GREAT pains to seperate the two. How can you possibly think it is shonky writing?

It tells you to do 1 part of shooting at a vehicle differently and because the basic rules are written with the assumption of you following the basic process that change interrupts the process and thus prevents the saves from working. This is clearly unintentional, if you don't believe so why would they hide this easter egg that they ignore invun and cover saves without directly stating it.

Intentional misunderstanding on your part isn't the fault of the writer.

 FlingitNow wrote:

No no, it specifically 100% Tells you, in no uncertain terms, to not follow standard methods of vehicle damage (rolling for glancing and penetrating hits). It goes to GREAT pains to seperate the two. How can you possibly think it is shonky writing?

It tells you to do 1 part of shooting at a vehicle differently and because the basic rules are written with the assumption of you following the basic process that change interrupts the process and thus prevents the saves from working. This is clearly unintentional, if you don't believe so why would they hide this easter egg that they ignore invun and cover saves without directly stating it.

Intentional misunderstanding on your part isn't the fault of the writer.

My though was that, maybe just maybe, the intent was for Grav's to only ignore cover/Invul on vehicles but not everything else. So some overly self important rules writer came up with that method of doing it as "obvious".

My though was that, maybe just maybe, the intent was for Grav's to only ignore cover/Invul on vehicles but not everything else. So some overly self important rules writer came up with that method of doing it as "obvious".

Seems unlikely given that vehicle invun saves still only ignored wounds suffered by RaW. GW just doesn't write rules to that level of accuracy. I see no reason to believe that they want grav to ignore cover and invuns for vehicles only. There is nothing in the game that ignores invuns that doesn't specifically call them out and tell you yes even invuns (see perils and D weapons only to date, not that the later works at all RaW).

So yes whilst I'm sure over the internet people will claim willful ignorance that the writer wanted it to ignore invulnerable saves for vehicles only through bypassing it with semantics, I've nevermet anyone that truly made that claim in person. Nor do I believe I ever will.

...Except, they FAQ'd invul saves when it comes to vehicles.

And why would it have to 'call out' being able to ignore the saves, if it doesnt need to? It isnt semantics, it is literally straight logic. If it explicitly tells you not to use a method of damage...why would you get saves that pertain to that damage?

...Except, they FAQ'd invul saves when it comes to vehicles.

But the FAQ doesn't fix the problem. It allows you to take invunsagainst glancing and penetrating hits but passing that invun still only ignores any wounds caused.

And why would it have to 'call out' being able to ignore the saves, if it doesnt need to?

Because it is normally accepted you take saves against damage to ignore that damage. But as pointed out the rules are not written in a very tight manner for this area.

It isnt semantics, it is literally straight logic.

Which is not always a great way to interpret rules written by GW.

If it explicitly tells you not to use a method of damage...why would you get saves that pertain to that damage?

The saves pertain to the only process in which vehicles take damage. This is a change to part of that process which doesn't mean you abound ignore the rest of the process. You talk about the saves as if they are only against a certain type of damage this is not the case damage for vehicles in the basic rules is only caused by penetrating and glancing hits.

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.

Because it is normally accepted you take saves against damage to ignore that damage. But as pointed out the rules are not written in a very tight manner for this area.

How is it not tight, exactly? Cover and invulnerable saves require glancing or penetrating hits, Grav doesnt do this. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

The saves pertain to the only process in which vehicles take damage. This is a change to part of that process which doesn't mean you abound ignore the rest of the process. You talk about the saves as if they are only against a certain type of damage this is not the case damage for vehicles in the basic rules is only caused by penetrating and glancing hits.

Except now there are two methods of damage, arent there? Also, dangerous terrain doesnt cause glancing or penetrating hits, does it? Even this still doesnt matter. Unless specifically stated, Codex always takes precedence over the BRB. The Codex now offers a third way of damaging a vehicle, and this way does not trigger cover or invulnerable saves. Also, cover and invulnerable saves absolutely only pertain to a certain type of damage on vehicles, glancing and penetrating hits. If you can find something in there that countermands this, please cite page number.

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.

Except I in no way agree with your idea of RAI, that is why we are having this argument. Also it is definitely not a 'clear RAI' as you are not Cruddace and have no idea what his intentions were when writing this codex. Saying im justifying cheating when you cannot put forward a definitive argument against me is sort of farcical, honestly.

Due to the similarities between grav weapons and dangerous terrain, I believe that cover saves and invulnerable saves should be allowed. My group agrees with this interpretation.