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.
2013/09/11 19:10:44
Subject: Re:Grav Weapons vs Cover against vehicles
rigeld2 wrote: Well, yes - it causes a penetrating or glancing hit. edit: assuming there's a non CC Haywire weapon.
Grav weapons don't cause either.
My point is that a similar argument is being used to allow grav weapons to ignore cover saves.
From the OP:
"GRAV WEAPON (p121 Marine dex)
When resolving a hit against a vehicle, roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling for armour penetrations normal. On a 1-5 nothing happens, but on a 6, the target suffers an lmmobilised result and loses a single Hull Point. "
You dont make an armour penetration roll against Haywire either.
Bah, more word-trickery to make things more powerful than they are intended. If this is RAI, then they would have added to special rule: Ignores Cover (Vehicles).
Moridan wrote: You dont make an armour penetration roll against Haywire either.
... You're missing the point.
That's not why you don't get a cover save or invul save against a grav weapon. It has literally nothing to do with the armor penetration roll. Nothing. Zero. Zip.
Look on page 75 and find the words:
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it,
Does a Grav gun cause one of those? Does a Haywire hit?
Comparing the two is a red herring - please stop.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Moridan wrote: You dont make an armour penetration roll against Haywire either.
... You're missing the point.
That's not why you don't get a cover save or invul save against a grav weapon. It has literally nothing to do with the armor penetration roll. Nothing. Zero. Zip.
Look on page 75 and find the words:
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it,
Does a Grav gun cause one of those? Does a Haywire hit?
Comparing the two is a red herring - please stop.
So I take it you believe the RAI for grav weapons is to ignore any save against a vehicle, but not any other unit type? You can call my comparison a "red herring" but the comparison by your own words is valid. Stop yourself lol.
Moridan wrote: So I take it you believe the RAI for grav weapons is to ignore any save against a vehicle, but not any other unit type?
Maybe read the thread? I'm pretty sure I've said how I think they'll rule it.
You can call my comparison a "red herring" but the comparison by your own words is valid. Stop yourself lol.
No, in my own words it's not valid. One does one thing, the other does a completely different thing. Comparing them is like comparing apples and potatoes to see which one is more orange.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Thunderfire tremor shots causing Imobilization via dangerous terrain tests, but there is more going on there.
I've always felt you should be able to take cover saves from the hits caused by marker lights... But clearly you can't
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/11 19:47:00
OK, this is my last post in this thread until new information comes up.
Spoiler:
1. Cover saves can negate a Penetrating/Glancing hit (henceforth referred to as "Hits"), meaning no Hull Points are lost, no roll on the damage table. (RAW, BRB page 75, second bullet point).
2. Invulnerable saves can negate a Hit in the same way as a Cover save. (Assumption, based on BRB Errata and point 1).
3. Temporary Conclusion 1 - With no further evidence, Cover Saves/Invulnerable Saves cannot be taken against damage to vehicles unless the damage is the result of a Hit.
4. Failing a Dangerous Terrain test causes Immobilisation and loss of a Hull Point (RAWBRB Errata, BRB page 71 "Difficult and Dangerous Terrain" last sentence).
5. Damage from Dangerous Terrain is not caused by a Hit. (RAW, there is no armour penetration roll thus no Hit).
6. Cover saves cannot be taken against failed Dangerous Terrain tests (RAW, BRB page 90, "Dangerous Terrain", 3rd paragraph, second sentence).
7. Vehicles can take Invulnerable saves against failed Dangerous Terrain tests (RAW for Dark Eldar vehicles with Flickerfield (see Dark Eldar FAQ), general assumption for any vehicle with an Invulnerable save based on same).
8. Invulnerable saves can be taken when damage is caused without being caused by a Hit (assumption based on point 7)
9. Temporary Conclusion #2 - Due to the mechanics of Cover Saves and Invulnerable Saves, if a vehicle suffers damage (regardless of the source) it can take a save to negate the damage.
10. Grav-weapons cause damage without an armour penetration roll (RAW, Codex: Space Marines, page 121, "Graviton" last sentence).
11. Conclusion 1 - Based on the Dark Eldar FAQ, and the similarities between Grav-weapons and failed Dangerous Terrain tests, a vehicle can take an Invulnerable Save to attempt to negate the damage.
12. Final Conclusion - due to the above listed reasons (some RAW, some assumptions based on RAW) and owing to the fact that Grav-weapons do not possess any special rule that allows it to ignore cover, Cover Saves can be taken against the damage.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
rigeld2 wrote: And I don't think your assumption in point 7 is valid without support. If that FAQ was worded differently it'd be a valid assumption.
There have been multiple times where a codex specific FAQ is used as precedent for other armies.
Or (out of genuine curiosity) were you against non Baal Predators vehicles popping smoke during their Scout move?
Or did you mean Point 8 (Invuln saves against any damage)?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/11 20:05:47
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
rigeld2 wrote: And I don't think your assumption in point 7 is valid without support. If that FAQ was worded differently it'd be a valid assumption.
There have been multiple times where a codex specific FAQ is used as precedent for other armies.
Or (out of genuine curiosity) were you against non Baal Predators vehicles popping smoke during their Scout move?
I was against it, but there was an overwhelming majority for it, so it didn't bother me much. Don't get me wrong - I understand why you're using it to argue, just that it should be worded differently to be applied more broadly.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Happyjew wrote: OK, this is my last post in this thread until new information comes up.
Spoiler:
1. Cover saves can negate a Penetrating/Glancing hit (henceforth referred to as "Hits"), meaning no Hull Points are lost, no roll on the damage table. (RAW, BRB page 75, second bullet point).
2. Invulnerable saves can negate a Hit in the same way as a Cover save. (Assumption, based on BRB Errata and point 1).
3. Temporary Conclusion 1 - With no further evidence, Cover Saves/Invulnerable Saves cannot be taken against damage to vehicles unless the damage is the result of a Hit.
4. Failing a Dangerous Terrain test causes Immobilisation and loss of a Hull Point (RAWBRB Errata, BRB page 71 "Difficult and Dangerous Terrain" last sentence).
5. Damage from Dangerous Terrain is not caused by a Hit. (RAW, there is no armour penetration roll thus no Hit).
6. Cover saves cannot be taken against failed Dangerous Terrain tests (RAW, BRB page 90, "Dangerous Terrain", 3rd paragraph, second sentence).
7. Vehicles can take Invulnerable saves against failed Dangerous Terrain tests (RAW for Dark Eldar vehicles with Flickerfield (see Dark Eldar FAQ), general assumption for any vehicle with an Invulnerable save based on same).
8. Invulnerable saves can be taken when damage is caused without being caused by a Hit (assumption based on point 7)
9. Temporary Conclusion #2 - Due to the mechanics of Cover Saves and Invulnerable Saves, if a vehicle suffers damage (regardless of the source) it can take a save to negate the damage.
10. Grav-weapons cause damage without an armour penetration roll (RAW, Codex: Space Marines, page 121, "Graviton" last sentence).
11. Conclusion 1 - Based on the Dark Eldar FAQ, and the similarities between Grav-weapons and failed Dangerous Terrain tests, a vehicle can take an Invulnerable Save to attempt to negate the damage.
12. Final Conclusion - due to the above listed reasons (some RAW, some assumptions based on RAW) and owing to the fact that Grav-weapons do not possess any special rule that allows it to ignore cover, Cover Saves can be taken against the damage.
I think you nailed it with this description. But, and it is a big but, the TO will have to accept that the precedent from another FAQ applies. There is no rule or even guideline that states if something is unclear, to search a FAQ from another army.
As it stands right now, RAW, neither cover or inulnerable saves can be taken.
Now, with that being said, in my personal games I will allow an invulnerable save to be taken. And I am a very competitive player that is on the cutting edge of the meta at all times (for what it is worth).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/11 21:08:24
2013/09/11 23:23:54
Subject: Re:Grav Weapons vs Cover against vehicles
Okay my take on this is that WAAC players who need this to be as OP as possible are taking it WAY to far.
Simply put, if they intended for Grav guns to ignore cover, they would have the ability listed under their rule set that would say, "Ignores Cover." Every weapon that ignores cover explicitly states that it ignores cover. The Grav guns do NOT explicitly state they ignore cover. There are all kinds of mental gymnastics being done here in order to claim that these weapons ignore cover for vehicles, but not everything else. Same thing with invulnerable saves. Stop playing this game like every single rule is written with some deeper meaning that you have to read into.
The short of the long is, if someone tries to pull that crap with me I will concede the game and find a better opponent to play against. As I play C:SM I and intend to run Grav Centurions I will be allowing cover and invul saves to be taken against them. Rules layers can try and break this down anyway the want but I do not have to put up with their crap.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/11 23:24:43
2013/09/11 23:57:51
Subject: Re:Grav Weapons vs Cover against vehicles
Arbiter_Shade wrote: Okay my take on this is that WAAC players who need this to be as OP as possible are taking it WAY to far.
Simply put, if they intended for Grav guns to ignore cover, they would have the ability listed under their rule set that would say, "Ignores Cover." Every weapon that ignores cover explicitly states that it ignores cover. The Grav guns do NOT explicitly state they ignore cover. There are all kinds of mental gymnastics being done here in order to claim that these weapons ignore cover for vehicles, but not everything else. Same thing with invulnerable saves. Stop playing this game like every single rule is written with some deeper meaning that you have to read into.
The short of the long is, if someone tries to pull that crap with me I will concede the game and find a better opponent to play against. As I play C:SM I and intend to run Grav Centurions I will be allowing cover and invul saves to be taken against them. Rules layers can try and break this down anyway the want but I do not have to put up with their crap.
First, you realize nobody has specified that they would play no save, so there is no need to freak out about people dissuading the actual rules. I fully accept that as it stands, RAW no cover save. My view is exactly that, how I interpret the authors intent based on other rules.
Second, not everybody arguing for no saves plays SM. And I think you should apologize for assuming they are WAAC players.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
2013/09/12 00:12:18
Subject: Re:Grav Weapons vs Cover against vehicles
Arbiter_Shade wrote: Okay my take on this is that WAAC players who need this to be as OP as possible are taking it WAY to far.
Simply put, if they intended for Grav guns to ignore cover, they would have the ability listed under their rule set that would say, "Ignores Cover." Every weapon that ignores cover explicitly states that it ignores cover. The Grav guns do NOT explicitly state they ignore cover. There are all kinds of mental gymnastics being done here in order to claim that these weapons ignore cover for vehicles, but not everything else. Same thing with invulnerable saves. Stop playing this game like every single rule is written with some deeper meaning that you have to read into.
The short of the long is, if someone tries to pull that crap with me I will concede the game and find a better opponent to play against. As I play C:SM I and intend to run Grav Centurions I will be allowing cover and invul saves to be taken against them. Rules layers can try and break this down anyway the want but I do not have to put up with their crap.
First, you realize nobody has specified that they would play no save, so there is no need to freak out about people dissuading the actual rules. I fully accept that as it stands, RAW no cover save. My view is exactly that, how I interpret the authors intent based on other rules.
Second, not everybody arguing for no saves plays SM. And I think you should apologize for assuming they are WAAC players.
You're right, not everyone is proposing that they would play that way but I find it even questionable that RAW would allow for it to ignore cover. People are arguing that because it doesn't specify it ignores cover. There are different levels of what I personally call WAAC and someone who would use Grav guns that ignore cover is what I consider WAAC. I am not implying that they are cheaters like some people define WAAC as but that is still twisting the spirit of a game, which is for two players to have fun, in such a way that it becomes unfun. I have played against people who attempt to twist the meaning of every word in every sentence of a rule to make the most outrageous claims. That is what I see here, people twisting intent based on a selective literally meaning in order to get an advantage. That to me is WAAC. I will not apologize for using the term.
I am not freaking out on anyone, I really don't care to much about this because my regular gaming group doesn't put up with these kind of shenanigans. We are all looking to have fun, winning doesn't matter in the end. Everyone can have their own interpretation of a rule but I am just asking people to use an ounce of common sense and try to make this as fun as they can for each player.
It's just as 'WAAC' as people who deny you to use RAW-stuff because it's "unclear and questionable" in their opinion.
We have two kind of discussions on YMDC:
-"Hey, can you help me with this issue?"
-"How does the rule work exactly?"
We don't say that everyone should play it like X, we only say that according to the RAW it should be played like X.
And those discussions can come to interesting questions that we can send to GW so they can FAQ it.
Because we can never know the RAI, maybe the writer intended Grav-weapons to ignore cover, maybe he didn't?
We don't know!
Personally I feel as if it's intended for them to ignore cover.
Happyjew also convinced me that Inv-saves can be used.
To me that makes sense: It's a gravity weapon, gravity ignores cover. But special shields could still stop the shot.
dlight wrote: Getting the most out of your wargear\options is hardly being WAAC. Quit being a care bear. We are playing a wargame not barbies.
I don't know about you, but I'm not playing. I'm discussing the rules on a forum.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
One thing I ran across on this was that vehicles take cover saves exactly like a non-vehicle model would for a wound.
It's weak but could be used as a defense of "if it were a non-vehicle it would get a cover save and they take them the same way" it's like p.75 don't have it in front of me.
Any thoughts on that idea?
Kisada II wrote: One thing I ran across on this was that vehicles take cover saves exactly like a non-vehicle model would for a wound.
It's weak but could be used as a defense of "if it were a non-vehicle it would get a cover save and they take them the same way" it's like p.75 don't have it in front of me.
Any thoughts on that idea?
Unfortunately not. That is an argument as to the why the 'Ignores Cover' do effect vehicles even though the special rule only specify wounds.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: Okay my take on this is that WAAC players who need this to be as OP as possible are taking it WAY to far.
Simply put, if they intended for Grav guns to ignore cover, they would have the ability listed under their rule set that would say, "Ignores Cover." Every weapon that ignores cover explicitly states that it ignores cover. The Grav guns do NOT explicitly state they ignore cover. There are all kinds of mental gymnastics being done here in order to claim that these weapons ignore cover for vehicles, but not everything else. Same thing with invulnerable saves. Stop playing this game like every single rule is written with some deeper meaning that you have to read into.
The short of the long is, if someone tries to pull that crap with me I will concede the game and find a better opponent to play against. As I play C:SM I and intend to run Grav Centurions I will be allowing cover and invul saves to be taken against them. Rules layers can try and break this down anyway the want but I do not have to put up with their crap.
Hahaha Yes, I think this is a matter of Occam's Razor with the simplest answer being the correct one. If you have to read into a rule so far to discern the meaning versus the VERY simple answer to determine their intent, then you must be one of those people who just like's to argue. And I am totally OK with that because arguing can be fun (well, my wife doesnt think so).
YMDC is to argue rules with the purpose of coming to a consensus on the proper meaning of said rules, due in no small part to GWs inconsistent writing and lack of followup FAQs.
I would like to think there is an office full of GW employees somewhere reading these forums and comically asking each other, "why would they possibly think we meant the rule to be played that way?"
The problem with that, Moridan, is the lack of FAQ's being released. I know, if I was working for Game Workshop and reading these forums, that I would update any rule the moment I saw confusion over them. FAQ's would flow out of me like blood through a bolter wound, until everything was so fine tuned this forum would cease to exist. Clearly this is not the case, given how many times the same old question gets raised here, and how little they put into a FAQ if they even bother to release them.
I feel the only time they update the FAQ's is when they go up against someone that uses a poorly worded rule against them....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/12 12:28:35
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
I bet there are people out there who would work for a pittance to read these forums and collaborate rules clarifications into FAQs. Me being one of them. lol
The main argument against "ignores cover" not affecting vehicles seems to be because they don't get "wounded".
I present to you two quotes from the rule book to counter that logic.
1) p.17 - Invulnerable Saves. "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound"
Interesting. Invulns are ONLY for wounds. So no vehicle may ever make use of its Invulnerable saves, since wounds are never allocated to a vehicle. Unless vehicles treat glances/pens as a wound in regards to saving throws.
2) p.75 second bullet "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a
wound".
Affirmation that Vehicles do indeed treat glances/pens like wounds in regards to saving throws.
Using these above points I can only deduce that "ignores cover" does indeed work against vehicles to negate their cover save. I also must deduce that since grav weapons do not cause glances or pens, that they too ignore the cover saves of vehicles if they roll a 6.
Happyjew wrote: OK, this is my last post in this thread until new information comes up.
Spoiler:
1. Cover saves can negate a Penetrating/Glancing hit (henceforth referred to as "Hits"), meaning no Hull Points are lost, no roll on the damage table. (RAW, BRB page 75, second bullet point).
2. Invulnerable saves can negate a Hit in the same way as a Cover save. (Assumption, based on BRB Errata and point 1).
3. Temporary Conclusion 1 - With no further evidence, Cover Saves/Invulnerable Saves cannot be taken against damage to vehicles unless the damage is the result of a Hit.
4. Failing a Dangerous Terrain test causes Immobilisation and loss of a Hull Point (RAWBRB Errata, BRB page 71 "Difficult and Dangerous Terrain" last sentence).
5. Damage from Dangerous Terrain is not caused by a Hit. (RAW, there is no armour penetration roll thus no Hit).
6. Cover saves cannot be taken against failed Dangerous Terrain tests (RAW, BRB page 90, "Dangerous Terrain", 3rd paragraph, second sentence).
7. Vehicles can take Invulnerable saves against failed Dangerous Terrain tests (RAW for Dark Eldar vehicles with Flickerfield (see Dark Eldar FAQ), general assumption for any vehicle with an Invulnerable save based on same).
8. Invulnerable saves can be taken when damage is caused without being caused by a Hit (assumption based on point 7)
9. Temporary Conclusion #2 - Due to the mechanics of Cover Saves and Invulnerable Saves, if a vehicle suffers damage (regardless of the source) it can take a save to negate the damage.
10. Grav-weapons cause damage without an armour penetration roll (RAW, Codex: Space Marines, page 121, "Graviton" last sentence).
11. Conclusion 1 - Based on the Dark Eldar FAQ, and the similarities between Grav-weapons and failed Dangerous Terrain tests, a vehicle can take an Invulnerable Save to attempt to negate the damage.
12. Final Conclusion - due to the above listed reasons (some RAW, some assumptions based on RAW) and owing to the fact that Grav-weapons do not possess any special rule that allows it to ignore cover, Cover Saves can be taken against the damage.
Point 7 is just a clarification of page 90 of the BRB. For some 'a model' did not include 'a vehicle model'. The Dark Eldar FAQ simply reminds us that is does. I would also argue that points 8 and 11 are flawed. Pg 90 gives us permission to take an invulnerable save after a failed dangerous terrain test and pg 17 allows a vehicle to take an invulnerable save after suffering a glancing or penetrating hit. These are both specific permissions to allow something that normally can not happen.
I think you need permission to take a save. The BRB outlines when a model gets permission (with some broad strokes) but does not grant permission for either save in this particular case. RAW no saves for grav wepons. Not how I would play it though. Its just a oversight as I feel the developers are viewing the roll on the VDT as being akin to a roll to wound. If the vehicles got their saves before a roll to penetrate this would be a non issue (and is how I play)
2013/09/13 10:37:37
Subject: Re:Grav Weapons vs Cover against vehicles
By some of of the reasoning here you would NOT get a cover save, after reading the Codex that seems to be the case...
However good luck getting any opponent to agree with you on this for obvious reasons Moreover as it does not state that it ignores cover (unlike Tau SMS and using marker lights where it states it removes cover...) opponents will always bring that issue up until it gets an FAQ.
Of course to the OP: its a messy issue indeed, so until such time as GW 'clarifies' the issue then it is up to you how you play it, personally arguing for it ignoring cover saves is just going to result in said palyer getting branded a 'douchebag' and other offensive terms, for no good reason.
By that if i actually encounter any grav gun/use them then i suspect my group will give cover saves...
If i were a TO? hmmm its 'difficult' to get right but as the players have to respect your rules, in the interests of keeping things 'civil' i would allow coversaves as i'm sure some will get fed up of answering this very question.
just my humble opinion
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/13 10:38:59
A humble member of the Warlords Of Walsall.
Warmahordes:
Cryx- epic filth
Khador: HERE'S BUTCHER!!!
GW: IG: ABG, Dark Eldar , Tau Black Templars.
2013/09/13 14:44:51
Subject: Re:Grav Weapons vs Cover against vehicles
So me and a couple of friends called GW and surprisingly all received the same response while asking the same question:
"with the way it's currently worded, they won't get to take a cover save -- however, at a tournament or organized event you should bring this up with the event organizers".
I know this obviously doesn't solidify it as people have received conflicting answers on other issues, but our group is going to play it as they do not get a cover save -- at least until it's written down in a FAQ that states otherwise.
The fact that we all received the same answer was good enough, and we all came to an agreement.
2000 points
3000~ points
875 points 
Moreover as it does not state that it ignores cover (unlike Tau 
Black Templars.