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.

 Mywik wrote:


RAW: No cover save

HIWPI: Cover save

This. I see it as pretty obvious RAI that cover should be allowed.

scorpio2069 wrote:
It still causes 3 hp, the weapon says on a six it suffers an "immobilized result". So for steps here this is what you do.

1. fire the grav-gun
2. roll for hit (2 hits)
3. instead of rolling for pen, roll a d6 for first hit. (6 is rolled)
4. special rules state an immobilized result is applied.
5. pull out BRB and read immobilized result on vehicle damage table.
6.subtract 1 HP
7. instead of rolling for second pen, roll another d6 (6 is rolled again)
8. special rules once again state an immobilized result is applied.
9. Pull out BRB again and read the immobilized result.
10. subtract 1 HP. Then subtract a second HP as per the entry under immobilized result on vehicle damage table for already being immobilized.

Seems pretty clear cut and dry to me. whether it is rolled for or not, it is still instructed to apply the result from the vehicle damage table. Not part of the result, but the entire entry.

Unit shooting is resolved at the same time though, what happens when the effect is applied at the same time.


If you apply immo. again from another squad I would obviously agree to take 2hp off but this isn't RAI or RAW

Incorrect. Damage results are absolutely sequential

1st 6, immobilized (1hp). second 6, (1hp) becausse x2 immbolized, add another hp. 3 hps.
thats how every opponent and me ive come across play.

I think it's pretty clear that shooting is not longer resolved at the same time, based on Ravenwing grenade launchers, scatter lasers, vehicle damage, resolving wound pools seperately etc.

The Grav gun itself also states that you roll one dice at a time for each hit against vehicles.

blaktoof wrote:


The only way you are permitted to achieve an immobilized result from shooting/assaulting a vehicle in the rulebook is by rolling on the vehicle damage chart.

Or......you could apply an Immobilized Result (without actually rolling on the damage table) if, say, you were told to do it. Like the Grav Gun rules happens to do.

Steelmage99 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


The only way you are permitted to achieve an immobilized result from shooting/assaulting a vehicle in the rulebook is by rolling on the vehicle damage chart.

Or......you could apply an Immobilized Result (without actually rolling on the damage table) if, say, you were told to do it. Like the Grav Gun rules happens to do.

If you quoted the next line of my post where I said that you wouldn't have needed to post. At all

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
1st 6, immobilized (1hp). second 6, (1hp) becausse x2 immbolized, add another hp. 3 hps.
thats how every opponent and me ive come across play.

This. Definitely this. I don't understand how this is even remotely confusing? It's exactly as ninjafiredragon has written. It's also nothing to do with the OP. Wanna argue it? Take it to another new post!

As for cover saves, I think it's pretty clear. RAW - no cover save, RAI - who knows, HIWPI -cover saves every day.

blaktoof wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


The only way you are permitted to achieve an immobilized result from shooting/assaulting a vehicle in the rulebook is by rolling on the vehicle damage chart.

Or......you could apply an Immobilized Result (without actually rolling on the damage table) if, say, you were told to do it. Like the Grav Gun rules happens to do.

If you quoted the next line of my post where I said that you wouldn't have needed to post. At all

Why would one quote(or read) the next line in the post when they can just jump all over a section of a post like it was the only thing that was said(See my Sig)?

On Topic; I absolutely Play it as allowing Cover saves, And I have several Grav Guns in my list(more for weight of Fire and AP2 than for Antitank/ Bandwagon, and Playing Sons of Medusa lets me fluff-in all new toys as a Tech-centric Successor Chapter who would be requisitioning new equipment as they would not have an earlier founding's relics[I also do not tend to use the Chapter Relics list very often if at all]).

It's pretty clear that they don't allow cover saves. Saves are to see if a weapon hits a non armored or vital spot. Grav lifts and slams. Also it already only does anything to a vehicle at all on a six, even ork trukks. With that in mind it's pretty clear, if they were allowed a save after you already need an average of six hits for one lousy hull point and an immobilize, it would be worthless against any vehicle. Remember this weapon won't one shot even the weakest vehicles in the game.

 Orock wrote:
It's pretty clear that they don't allow cover saves. Saves are to see if a weapon hits a non armored or vital spot. Grav lifts and slams. Also it already only does anything to a vehicle at all on a six, even ork trukks. With that in mind it's pretty clear, if they were allowed a save after you already need an average of six hits for one lousy hull point and an immobilize, it would be worthless against any vehicle. Remember this weapon won't one shot even the weakest vehicles in the game.

Given that grav weapons fire between 3-5 shots in a single attack they can kill literally any vehicle in the game in one shooting attack. The Grav Centurions are amazing antitank and kill basically any vehicle you point them at even a Landraider.

If they should obviously ignore cover why are there literally no rules that state they ignore cover? (RaW they bypass the cover process they don't ignore cover) also why does everything that isn't a vehicle get a cover save?

I'm not sure whether you are arguing just for the sake of it or intentionally trying to cheat.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Orock wrote:
It's pretty clear that they don't allow cover saves. Saves are to see if a weapon hits a non armored or vital spot. Grav lifts and slams. Also it already only does anything to a vehicle at all on a six, even ork trukks. With that in mind it's pretty clear, if they were allowed a save after you already need an average of six hits for one lousy hull point and an immobilize, it would be worthless against any vehicle. Remember this weapon won't one shot even the weakest vehicles in the game.

Given that grav weapons fire between 3-5 shots in a single attack they can kill literally any vehicle in the game in one shooting attack. The Grav Centurions are amazing antitank and kill basically any vehicle you point them at even a Landraider.

If they should obviously ignore cover why are there literally no rules that state they ignore cover? (RaW they bypass the cover process they don't ignore cover) also why does everything that isn't a vehicle get a cover save?

I'm not sure whether you are arguing just for the sake of it or intentionally trying to cheat.

grav guns are great anti tank, especially grav centurions.
as to your question aout why are we just talking about vehicles and not everything else it is...
Because raw in the rulebook there is in no way any rule raw or rai that would let grav guns ignore cover vs everyhting else besides vehicles, BUT the way vehicle cover saves are written, it puts the question up for an answer.

I wasn't asking why we were just talking about vehicles. He stated it was obvious that they should have ignore cover, yet there are no rules stating they ignore cover. They bypass cover on vehicles due to a wording technicality in RAW. But no one that wasn't trying to cheat could honestly claim they believe that to be the RaI.

It makes no sense that they would ignore cover on vehicles and not everything else with no direct wording to support that rule.

This is just another case of pre FAQ please buy the models, then we will FAQ. They don't ignore cover because they don't say they do. Simple. Please stop powergaming so hard.

 juraigamer wrote:
This is just another case of pre FAQ please buy the models, then we will FAQ. They don't ignore cover because they don't say they do. Simple. Please stop powergaming so hard.

this isn't a case of power gaming and your comments are not useful or progressive of the discussion.

consequently I already posted the reasoning as to why they do ignore a cover save for vehicles here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/557935.page#6282141

this isn't a case of power gaming and your comments are not useful or progressive of the discussion.

consequently I already posted the reasoning as to why they do ignore a cover save for vehicles here:

Reposting a RAW argument that is already on the thread is also likewise not helpful for furthering the discussion. Grav weapons certainly do not ignore cover. Currently the RaW is that they bypass cover because they don't roll penetrating or glancing hits they bypass the process. This is certainly not intentional had they want grav weapons to ignore cover they would have told us.

 FlingitNow wrote:

this isn't a case of power gaming and your comments are not useful or progressive of the discussion.

consequently I already posted the reasoning as to why they do ignore a cover save for vehicles here:

Reposting a RAW argument that is already on the thread is also likewise not helpful for furthering the discussion. Grav weapons certainly do not ignore cover. Currently the RaW is that they bypass cover because they don't roll penetrating or glancing hits they bypass the process. This is certainly not intentional had they want grav weapons to ignore cover they would have told us.

Unless they only wanted gravguns to ignore cover saves on vehicles, given the infantry>>>vehicle mantra that 6th edition throws at you, repeatedly?

Your "certainly not intentional" part needs a citation. Prove it, given you are so certain it should be easy, no?

If they wanted it to ignore cover vs only vehicles, it would have said "ignores cover: vehicles"

They don't expect you to have to lawyer the process just so you can know that it ignores cover only vs vehicles.

It's sad really. The intent is obvious due to the lack of the scpecial rule that exists specifically for ignoring cover.

It's going to be FAQ'd, and those who now claim it ignores cover as RAI, are going to claim that it wasnt a clarifactation, but a rule change, and that they were right all along but GW caved.

Well it IS a rules change, if they FAQ it to not ignore cover saves taken by a vehicle. Currently, due to the way they wrote the rules for vehicles taking cover saves, grav guns bypass the vehicles ability t take cover saves. This isnt speculation, or interpretation, but the literal written rule.

I would not claim RAI, as personallly "RAI" is meaningless as a phrase, unless you are the studio member who wrote the rule.

 BarBoBot wrote:
If they wanted it to ignore cover vs only vehicles, it would have said "ignores cover: vehicles"

They don't expect you to have to lawyer the process just so you can know that it ignores cover only vs vehicles.

It's sad really. The intent is obvious due to the lack of the scpecial rule that exists specifically for ignoring cover.

It's going to be FAQ'd, and those who now claim it ignores cover as RAI, are going to claim that it wasnt a clarifactation, but a rule change, and that they were right all along but GW caved.

QFT

 FlingitNow wrote:

this isn't a case of power gaming and your comments are not useful or progressive of the discussion.

consequently I already posted the reasoning as to why they do ignore a cover save for vehicles here:

Reposting a RAW argument that is already on the thread is also likewise not helpful for furthering the discussion. Grav weapons certainly do not ignore cover. Currently the RaW is that they bypass cover because they don't roll penetrating or glancing hits they bypass the process. This is certainly not intentional had they want grav weapons to ignore cover they would have told us.

and had they slapped ignores cover USR to Grav weapons it would make it the single most over powered gun in the game considering it's an AP2 weapon.....also as previously stated the way it is worded is entirely purposeful p74 tells you exactly what you take a cover save against, grav weapons on p121 of the space marine codex does not utilise any of those factors, therefore it does not allow a cover save.

infantry on the other hand are permitted a cover save as it is rolling to wound them.

and had they slapped ignores cover USR to Grav weapons it would make it the single most over powered gun in the game considering it's an AP2 weapon.....also as previously stated the way it is worded is entirely purposeful p74 tells you exactly what you take a cover save against, grav weapons on p121 of the space marine codex does not utilise any of those factors, therefore it does not allow a cover save.

infantry on the other hand are permitted a cover save as it is rolling to wound them.

They could have restricted the rule to vehicles. Again if they wanted it to ignore cover they would have told us it did.

I understand the RaW argument reiterating it is pointless. We can all see RaW that grav weapons by pass cover saves. Just as RAW models without eyes (including all models who have helmets that cover where their eyes would be like Space Marines) can't draw LOS to anything and passed invulnerable saves on Vehicles ignore wounds and ghostarks allow you to add any model you want to a warrior unit. Pointing out RaW silliness is funny at times and often useful once repeating it ad neaseum is pointless and unhelpful.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Just as RAW models without eyes (including all models who have helmets that cover where their eyes would be like Space Marines) can't draw LOS to anything

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined might be incorrect.

We do not know if models with helmets have eyes or not as we can not see under the helmet.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Just as RAW models without eyes (including all models who have helmets that cover where their eyes would be like Space Marines) can't draw LOS to anything

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined might be incorrect.

We do not know if models with helmets have eyes or not as we can not see under the helmet.

We can not draw LOS from the eyes as we can determine if the model has eyes or where they are. At best. I would argue that the model does not have eyes as the model does not contain layers of detail like that as the helmet is a solid lump of plastic.

 FlingitNow wrote:

and had they slapped ignores cover USR to Grav weapons it would make it the single most over powered gun in the game considering it's an AP2 weapon.....also as previously stated the way it is worded is entirely purposeful p74 tells you exactly what you take a cover save against, grav weapons on p121 of the space marine codex does not utilise any of those factors, therefore it does not allow a cover save.

infantry on the other hand are permitted a cover save as it is rolling to wound them.

They could have restricted the rule to vehicles. Again if they wanted it to ignore cover they would have told us it did.

I understand the RaW argument reiterating it is pointless. We can all see RaW that grav weapons by pass cover saves. Just as RAW models without eyes (including all models who have helmets that cover where their eyes would be like Space Marines) can't draw LOS to anything and passed invulnerable saves on Vehicles ignore wounds and ghostarks allow you to add any model you want to a warrior unit. Pointing out RaW silliness is funny at times and often useful once repeating it ad neaseum is pointless and unhelpful.

so what exactly is your point?

throwing examples of other issues that have nothing to do with Grav weaponry is pointless and unhelpful, and I would apreshiate it if you kept the discussion within the confines of the context and not make it a personal thing.

I have cited the relevant rules and based my conclusion upon them, you have not.

you cannot claim an 'unintended' by product as there are no rules to support that fact, the wording is clear.

but seeing as you went out of your way to point out a few things:

LoS and helmet: eye sockets in helmet = eyes of the model, note that a model is as supplied by GW.

invulnerable on vehicles: Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves
Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are
different to armour saves because they may always be taken
whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,
suffers a penetrating or glancing hit – the Armour Piercing
value of attacking weapons has no effect upon an Invulnerable
save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores
all armour saves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”.

direct quote from the BRB FAQ: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

Ghost arks: I don't play as necrons so cannot pass a comment regarding them, however if any of the necron players are at my gaming club this evening I'll pass a glance over the rule and get back to you, as there is nothing in the FAQ for necrons, I am going with a hunch that its actually clear in the wording in the codex but will check.

We both agree on the RAW shall we leave it at that.

Eye sockets are not eyes, lenses in SM helmets are not eyes. Only eyes are eyes. Unless you have permission to have something else count as eyes.

Whilst you may take invulnerable saves for vehicles against glancing and penetrating hits by RAW passing those saves only results in any wounds caused to the vehicle being ignored.

Any way back on topic RAW Grav Weapons by pass the cover saves or indeed invulnerable saves of vehicles (the latter being useless RAW anyway). However there are no rules that tell you to ignore cover with grav weapons so my personal HYWPI is what to me appears to be the clear RaI of vehicles getting cover and invulnerable saves against grav weaponry.

there is one difference between the eye thing and grav though rai.
If it is truly only models with eyes can draw los, then thta completely ruin the whole dynamic of the game. literally making all space marine chapters useless. That would ruin the game.

grav does not necicarily ruin the game by passing cover on tanks, it just makes them a good amount better. but not game changing.

 FlingitNow wrote:
We both agree on the RAW shall we leave it at that.

Eye sockets are not eyes, lenses in SM helmets are not eyes. Only eyes are eyes. Unless you have permission to have something else count as eyes.

Whilst you may take invulnerable saves for vehicles against glancing and penetrating hits by RAW passing those saves only results in any wounds caused to the vehicle being ignored.

Any way back on topic RAW Grav Weapons by pass the cover saves or indeed invulnerable saves of vehicles (the latter being useless RAW anyway). However there are no rules that tell you to ignore cover with grav weapons so my personal HYWPI is what to me appears to be the clear RaI of vehicles getting cover and invulnerable saves against grav weaponry.

yes I am happy enough to leave the grav discussion at agreeing at that point.

I disagree about the eye thing though, as pedantic as this argument is,I defy you to show me a rule that dictates what classifies as an eye of the model, as there is also no definition of what helmets are it can be argued that the space marine model has eyes exactly where they seem to be, and that there simply are no eyes as we know them. there is no rule to say that that is a helmet instead of his face and the same goes for many others, the wraiths in the elder could simply be one very large eye that we have mistook for helmets due to comparing something with a human understanding. you know...if we are going to be pedantic about the issue.

again I disagree with your interpretation of RIA, in fact it would be intended to be the opposite of what you have said, its a gun that projects gravity, distorting it behond the confines of normal time and space, and creating a well, the larger the mass, the more damaging the effect would be, i.e. an infantryman has a better chance of surviving than a large vehicle would.

again I disagree with your interpretation of RIA, in fact it would be intended to be the opposite of what you have said, its a gun that projects gravity, distorting it behond the confines of normal time and space, and creating a well, the larger the mass, the more damaging the effect would be, i.e. an infantryman has a better chance of surviving than a large vehicle would.

On eyes, with no rulebook definition of eyes we fall to normal English definition.

You are free to disagree but the evidence is fairly strong for my position. The fact that RaW they also by pass INVUNERABLE saves for vehicles strongly implies there's something wrong with that interpretation. Also the fact that they have no fluff or proactive rules supporting that conclusion. This is an even deeper rules reading than the old Grey Knight Falchions debate which highlighted the sort of depth the rules are being thought of during the writing process. To be honest I have to say I don't believe that you really think for 1 second that an FAQ will say that Grav weapons ignore cover and invulnerable saves for vehicles. Only you know the truth on that and its up to you how you want to play it and how you and your opponents decide it should work.

Now while i don't like the idea of it, in a sens it makes sens that grav guns doesn't care about cover saves...

Its the darn gravity that works againsy the vehicle to crush it like a tin can, no cover can save you from gravity crushing you.

But then again its perfectly understandable that it worries people, after all the effort you can go through to have a chance to survive long enough to do your job, its pretty normal to be concerned.

What is more concerning, is that the way its written, its that it even ignores invulnerable saves from deamons engines etc...

And an invulnerable save is just that, Invulnerable, meaning you can attempt it regardless of what did hit you.

But with the grav rule itsd also unclear if you do get the invul save or if just like cover saves its ignored because the succesion of actions you must take in this case, wich makes little sens, and it is imo, another proof, that it was not intended like this.

But gotta wait for a faq...