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.

There is a minor issues I can see with the 3 HP for 2 shots idea is the way Resolving damage and The Immobilized table entry are phrased in the BRB.

pg 74 under Penetrating Hits
"Apply any appropriate modifiers (they are all cumulative) and look up the result using the Vehicle Damage table on the left."

pg 74 in the Vehicle Damage Table in the Immobilized Entry
"Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or Flyer with Locked Velocity (see pg 81) instead removes an additional Hull Point."


The term result is specific as referring to a Penetrating hit. For the Grav-gun this is a help and a hindrance. It bypasses cover saves because it specifically calls out effects (hull point, immobilized), but won't get additional Hull Points because of the same reason. The BRB never addresses Immobilized in any other way that tells you to remove hull points for immobilization unless it is via a penetrating hit.

The key question is why is anyone taking the waste of points centurions?

Back on topic though.

Is the vehicle already immobilized?

Yes. is the damage being done by something other than a mandatory immobilization such as pod landing yes.

then you abide by the immobilized rule of the BRB

Except of course that a grav gun causes an Immobilized result.

Yes and an already immobilized vehicle suffering an additional immobilized looses an additional hull point.

wargamer1985 wrote:Yes and an already immobilized vehicle suffering an additional immobilized looses an additional hull point.

Meant my reply for pk1 - you ninjaed me :p

pk1 wrote:There is a minor issues I can see with the 3 HP for 2 shots idea is the way Resolving damage and The Immobilized table entry are phrased in the BRB.

pg 74 under Penetrating Hits
"Apply any appropriate modifiers (they are all cumulative) and look up the result using the Vehicle Damage table on the left."

pg 74 in the Vehicle Damage Table in the Immobilized Entry
"Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or Flyer with Locked Velocity (see pg 81) instead removes an additional Hull Point."


The term result is specific as referring to a Penetrating hit. For the Grav-gun this is a help and a hindrance. It bypasses cover saves because it specifically calls out effects (hull point, immobilized), but won't get additional Hull Points because of the same reason. The BRB never addresses Immobilized in any other way that tells you to remove hull points for immobilization unless it is via a penetrating hit.

rigeld2 wrote:
Except of course that a grav gun causes an Immobilized result.

My apologies as your post had no direction I was unsure who it was aimed at and therefor replied

pk1 wrote:
The term result is specific as referring to a Penetrating hit. For the Grav-gun this is a help and a hindrance. It bypasses cover saves because it specifically calls out effects (hull point, immobilized), but won't get additional Hull Points because of the same reason. The BRB never addresses Immobilized in any other way that tells you to remove hull points for immobilization unless it is via a penetrating hit.

"[O]n a 6, the target suffers an immobilised result and loses a single hull point." (C:SM, p 121)

The BRB doesn't address the distinction between damage results caused by penetrating hits and damage results generated through other means because there isn't a distinction. A vehicle suffering an immobilized result is immobilized, while additional immobilized results cause the vehicle to lose hull points. It doesn't matter if those results are generated via dangerous terrain tests, shooting, or whatever.

The term result is specific

Yes it is an it appears in the Grav Weapons rules. You suffer an "immobilised result".

I wonder how many indeed if any of those arguing for 2 HPs have actually read the Gravgun rules. So many of them are posting arguments like PK1s where it is clear they haven't actually read the gravgun rules (or indeed the thread).

To point out I have and clearly causing an immobilized result twice clearly causes 3hp of damage. Otherwise you are stating the first immobilized result after the auto immobilized result for a drop pod will not do an additional point of damage

Yeah I agree that you get 3 HPs. I was questioning those who believe you don't like pk (who I quoted) who was making a RAW argument about a rule he clearly had not read.

you lose a HP, are immobilized,

you lose another HP, and are immobilized again (ie-1 HP)


that adds up to three in my books...

makes perfect sense for something like the graviton guns

To me the issue is about the timing.

Simply put can a unit shoot upon a "fresh and mobile" target and cause an "already immobilzed effect?

Clearly two or more units can cause this effect. However in this thread we talk about 1 unit shooting in 1 phase.

When shooting all shoots from one unit happens simultaneously. Just like you (the shooter) can choose in which order saves are taken against a unit, and subsequently how a whole unit gets to shoot even if you put down a template which might cause models to be removed to still be eligible for hits (well that's how we do at the club). and some guys might have been out of rapidfire range in if the flamer had killed it's targets initially. Or how a couple of flamers can roast a unit through causing a bucketful of wounds and a force a lot of saves to be rolled for.

Please explain from the BRB how and why shots are not fired simultaneously if that is your stance. If nothing else than because I want to kill some more tanks with my new centurions and put up a valid argument in the club. A similar argument to what's in this thread caused me to loose first blood.

Check damage resolution. Whilst shooting is simultaneous damage is resolved sequentially.

For instance I shoot at you command squad with the Apothecary being the nearest model. He will get FnP but once he dies the unit would not get against the rest of the wounds from the same units shooting.

To be honest I don't know of anyone that would have played 2 immobilised results from 1 unit not being and extra HP removed until the grav weapons came out.

Think of it this way if a unit shot a vehicle with 2 weapons and got 2 weapon destroyed results would you randomise both the weapon destroyed results giving a 50% chance that you just destroyed the same weapon twice or would you say both weapons were destroyed?

Page 13: All of the models in the unit fire at the same time regardless of whether or not all of the dice are rolled together.

Page 73: If any hits are scored, roll for each to see if they penetrate the vehicle's Armour Value, as explained next.

Page 73: Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the...

And we have tons more in the "Shooting Phase"-section that indicate you have to do it one-by-one.
It's what prevents a 1-wound model from taking 10 wounds before dying; you resolve the first wound, let him die, then continue to the next model.

How does the BRB FAQ not apply?

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

The grav weapon has two effects. 1st it has the vehicle suffer the effect of a immobilized result from the Vehicle Damage Table. 2nd it has it loose a single Hull Point. The FAQ seems extremely relevant here. The grav weapon did not cause a Glancing or Penetrating hit and the 1st effect does not specify that a hull point is lost. We cannot count the hull point loss from the second effect for this because then we would be double dipping. Gravitation simply does not meet the special requirements to cause an immobilized vehicle to loose an additional hull point for suffering further immobilize results.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"The FAQ part is of no importance here. Look at the series of events. First 6 cause the vehicle to lose a hull point and become immobilized (one hp down total). Second 6 causes the vehicles to lose a hull point and become immobilized as well, however the part you are overlooking is what happens to a vehicle that is immobilized if it becomes immobilized again, the answer has been pointed out and is found in the BRB that said vehicle loses an additional hull point. So the tally is one from first shot, one from second shot and a third from the second immobilization."

Brilliantly stated. : )

Same as with Drop pods if you immobilse a drop pod it loses another HP.

 DJGietzen wrote:
How does the BRB FAQ not apply?

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

The grav weapon has two effects. 1st it has the vehicle suffer the effect of a immobilized result from the Vehicle Damage Table. 2nd it has it loose a single Hull Point. The FAQ seems extremely relevant here. The grav weapon did not cause a Glancing or Penetrating hit and the 1st effect does not specify that a hull point is lost. We cannot count the hull point loss from the second effect for this because then we would be double dipping. Gravitation simply does not meet the special requirements to cause an immobilized vehicle to loose an additional hull point for suffering further immobilize results.

What special requirements?
A vehicle is hit by a grav gun and it's a 6 on it's special roll.
Loose a hull point and apply the immobilisation result.
Is the vehicle immobilised, if yes do what the rules clearly say.
If no, do what the rules clearly say.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The term result is specific

Yes it is an it appears in the Grav Weapons rules. You suffer an "immobilised result".

I wonder how many indeed if any of those arguing for 2 HPs have actually read the Gravgun rules. So many of them are posting arguments like PK1s where it is clear they haven't actually read the gravgun rules (or indeed the thread).

I stand corrected. I completely missed the word result when I read the grav-gun rules. Yea, it does say result which mean it would get 2 HPs for the second hit.

While we are on the subject, are there any other rules that immobilize a vehicle with out a glancing or penetrating hit (aside from the drop pod assault)?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

What special requirements?
A vehicle is hit by a grav gun and it's a 6 on it's special roll.
Loose a hull point and apply the immobilisation result.
Is the vehicle immobilised, if yes do what the rules clearly say.
If no, do what the rules clearly say.

The vehicle "specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost"

The 1st effect of the a successful gravitation does neither of these things.

Well, Immobilized specifies that a Hull Point is lost on already-Immobilized vehicles.

 DJGietzen wrote:
While we are on the subject, are there any other rules that immobilize a vehicle with out a glancing or penetrating hit (aside from the drop pod assault)?

Dangerous Terrain.

The 1st effect of the a successful gravitation does neither of these things.

You're misreading the FAQ. Horribly. It's been explained why.
The question is asking if a Hull Point loss is included in the mentioned results. The FAQ answers no.
There is nothing in that FAQ asking if you ignore the rules for Immobilised which is exactly what you're doing. This is demonstrated by the fact that you're ignoring the other effects mentioned in the question have no special hull point loss rules associated with them.

Thanks rigeld2 and MrSlowPoke. I can see what your saying and it does make sense.

3hp it is!

How does the same argument over cover saves affect your thoughts on this?

All shooting is simultaneous. We all agree on this. The only thing that happens sequentially is the resolution of hits into glances and penetrations, and for pens, rolling on the vehicle damaged table.

Grav weapons never roll to determine glance or pen => hence the rules that indicate sequential rolling of results are never brought into effect => hence you can only ever get 1 immobilized result per unit shooting, per phase.

My interpretation is that you roll to hit, then roll for grav effect, tally up the 6's, if any, and inflict that number of hull points + immobilized.

I will concede that a second unit, or the same unit in a subsequent turn, that scores a hit, followed by a 6, will then inflict an additional hull point as the vehicle has been previously immobilized.

Anyone care to show the rules that invalidate the above interpretation?

 DJGietzen wrote:
How does the BRB FAQ not apply?

A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost.

Look at the part that I made red.
The suffering from the result doesn't make it lose a HP (like people argued with droppods).
The result itself causes an additional hullpoint because the rule-text of 'Immobilized' says that.

Do you know the "Drop Pod loses a HP on landing"-discussion?
Before C:SM some vehicles got Immobilized due to rules.
People argued that every result from the Damage Table comes with a HP-loss.
Without those FAQ people would now argue that 2 6's cause FIVE Hull Points loss: 2 from Grav, 2 from being Immobilized and 1 from double Immobilize.

2 from being immobilized..? How?

Grav: On a six, the vehicle suffers an Immobilized result.
Immobilized result: If the vehicle is already Immobilized, instead remove an additional Hull Point.

Why do people keep bring up this FAQ? It doesn't apply. This FAQ is about receiving just a damage result without a pen, glance, or other HP loss.

For example. Let's say that I have a weapon, that on hit, it causes a crew shaken. What this FAQ says, is that just because the vehicle suffers a crew shaken, does not mean that it also loses a hull point.

First off, the grav-weapon specifically removes a HP, which this FAQ talks about. When read between the lines, this FAQ also says that it is possible for a vehicle to suffer an affect from the damage chat without penning, glancing, or otherwise losing a hull point in some other way.

Order of operation:
Rolled 2 6s of the gravgun
Resolve one 6.
Vehicle becomes immobilized.
From the immobilized damage result, was it immobilized before? No. move on.
Lose a hull point.
Resolve second 6.
Vehicle becomes immolilized.
From the immobilized damage result, was it immobilized before? Yes. Lose a hull point instead of being immobilized again.
Lose a hull point.

That's 3

 Sothas wrote:
Why do people keep bring up this FAQ? It doesn't apply.

I believe (overall through including other threads) that I was the first to bring up that FAQ, as at the time I did not have the codex and was unaware of the HP loss.

 Sothas wrote:
Why do people keep bring up this FAQ? It doesn't apply. This FAQ is about receiving just a damage result without a pen, glance, or other HP loss.

Because people that missed the entire "A Drop Pod loses a HP on landing!"-discussion might get confused by why they actually made the FAQ and can think it applies to instances like that.
FAQ's aren't that thoroughly understood by most people since they don't follow places like YMDC close enough.

From my entire playgroup I am probably the only one who reads these discussions and has a deeper understanding of the rules.
(And that's not to WAAC my way through games as some people might claim, but due to the rules-knowledge I have discovered that we played a couple of things wrong, putting the armies that already had a low W/L-ratio at a disadvantage.)

That's 3

I actually like this thread because many people came in here, saying that it was only 2 and agreed when others provided proof.

I am, however, extremely pissed at Natfka for bringing this up in an environment that is not suited to discuss these things.
He just started a blog (read by thousands of people) and wrote something that was nothing more than "U R WRONG!" while 'quoting' the wrong stuff.
I call it 'quoting' because his 'quotes' left important words out of the rules-text.
He says that "On a 6 the vehicle is immobilized and loses a hull point." while the actual rules say it "suffers an Immobilised result" (bolded by me), which is the strongest argument for it losing 3HP in total!

Totally annoying >.> he's a bringer of news, a reporter, he should address things like this neutrally and not pull a 'Fox News'.

 conker249 wrote:
3 shots to kill a landraider is powerful indeed. Im not looking forward to fighting grav guns.

4 shots to kill a Land Raider, as the above sequence of events results in a vehicle losing 3 hull points.