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.

Because if you change the rules it is a House rule or if you are unsure of the rules and create you own solution (which coukd be the actual rule) is a house rule. Of course RaW can be house rules are you claiming RaW = The Rules? Because lots of FaQs have illustrated that RaW =/= RaI.

RAW gets changed by the FAQs you know.... RAW is the rules as written. Due to the limitations of language the interpretation of rules is not set in stone and different people can read it differently because of variance in local dialect. That multiple interpretations of a rule exist doesn't change that it is the rule. Ignoring the written word and putting in your own arbitrary rule is creating a house rule, following RAW is not a house rule.

I'm saying that RAW is a valid reading of the rules and to say that someone is cheating because of that is childish.

RaW is the literal translation of the written text interpreted as a computer would interpret a programme. The rules are written to be interpreted this way so to interpret them that way and claim it is the rules is fallacious to say the least. RaW is not the same as RaI and making that claim is not childish. The attitude that cheating is ok if you can semantically out argue your opponent is baffling to me.

The idea that someone is cheating because they play the rules on the page is baffling to me.

Your second sentence shows the problem of your point, RAI is not a universal standard and someone that says the intention is as written is just as valid. You can't call someone a cheat unless they are actually cheating.

That RAW and RAI are not always the same isn't the problem I have with your point. To say that someone is a cheater without them breaking a rule is what I call into question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you can take both cover and invuns against Grav weapons. Anyone saying that they ignore them is literally making rules up. They do bypass them RaW but anyone trying to enforce that house rule on you is cheating....

Expect a bunch of people to get indignant about be called on cheating.

It's fine to expect people to get indignant about being called a cheat without cause, it's actually defamation and in many sports the false accusation is a punishable offence. The bolded is the line I have a problem with.

Indeed, many people might play it as a house rule that vehicles DO get saves, but RAW, the literal text, does not allow the saves, because vehicles get to take a save vs glancing and penetrating hits, and grav weapons cause neither.

This is ridiculous. If a grav weapon ignored cover then it would say it ignores cover.

I'm a space marine player and it's pretty obvious to me. If you're a vehicle obscured by an object and I shoot you with a lascannon. You can take a cover save, lascannon does not ignore cover. It doesn't state it ignores cover.

Imagine the silhouette of a tank. When you roll to hit and you score a hit. Your shot is going to hit somewhere on that silhouette. Now imagine a silhouette of a large rock in front of the tank. When the tank makes a cover save, it's basically saying, you would have scored a hit but that rock was in the way.

If a tank is behind cover and you fire a salvo of 5 and hit 3, your opponent then rolls to see if you hit the tank or the cover.

If an infantry model gets the cover save, why wouldn't a tank?

Well Johnny, that's a good question.
It could be that since the armour of a model is proportional to the effect of a grav weapon the design team felt that vehicles should have no opportunity to escape it's devastating effects and that the 1/6 chance of an effect was enough.

It could also be a massive oversight in the writing of the rules but we won't know until an FAQ comes out. Until then each side is just as valid RAI and RAW is very clear.

It could also be a massive oversight in the writing of the rules but we won't know until an FAQ comes out. Until then each side is just as valid RAI and RAW is very clear.

Underlined is a lie as you know only one side is valid RaI. You have a process to follow when shooting the Grav weapons change one part of that process to claim the RaI is for that to then invalidate the next step for Vehicles is ludicrous.

A good basis for RaI is follow the status quo unless told differently. Are we told Grav weapons ignore cover or invunerable saves?

We all know that reading RaW simply doesn't work in this game system (Destroyer weapons, FMCs, LoS etc etc etc). Being able to understand stuff beyond the literal is fairly basic social interaction. If you're not capable of that. Well that's your look out.

So cheating, a liar and I am incapable of basic social interation... you must be fun to play with.


RAI is an opinion based interpretation of the rules based on a personal feeling for the designers intent. That is, unless you are so arrogant to assume that you know what the design team intended. I doubt you are.

I even hate the acronym RAI.

No one but the design teams knows exactly how something was intended, to say otherwise is arrogant.

no cover from grav, raw or rai in my eyes.

I allow invuns though since there was a faq that allowed invuns againgst difficult terrain damage.

It's a TFG move to claim that they ignore cover or invulnerable saves. People state it is "RAW", yet actually come to the conclusion by reading selectively into the rules.

Nowhere in the rules does it explicitly state that grav guns ignore saves when targeting vehicles. Ergo, you get a save.

If you want a case to support this, then consider vehicles receiving an immobilized result for moving through cover.
They do not receive a penetrating or glancing hit when they become immobilized, yet can take an invulnerable save against the result (if they have one).

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaW is the literal translation of the written text interpreted as a computer would interpret a programme. The rules are written to be interpreted this way so to interpret them that way and claim it is the rules is fallacious to say the least. RaW is not the same as RaI and making that claim is not childish. The attitude that cheating is ok if you can semantically out argue your opponent is baffling to me.

This post makes no sense. If someone reads the rules differently to how you do, they're not 'cheating' by playing the way they read the rules.

Your interpretation of how the rules should be played is no more inherently correct than anyone else's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
. Being able to understand stuff beyond the literal is fairly basic social interaction. If you're not capable of that. Well that's your look out.

You need to dial down the antagonism if you wish to continue this discussion.

First and only warning for this thread.

This post makes no sense. If someone reads the rules differently to how you do, they're not 'cheating' by playing the way they read the rules. 

Your interpretation of how the rules should be played is no more inherently correct than anyone else's.

I'm not saying reading the rules differently to me and wishing to play that way is cheating. I've never stated my oppinion what the RaI is, is any more valid than anyone else's. What I'm saying is that we all can see the intention here it is very obvious. Not just to me but to everyone that reads the rules. Some people can then twist the clear meaning through semantic arguments and declare as that is technically correct that it is the rules and they are going to play by that advantage.

But you know all this as we've discussed it in the past which begs the question of why you misrepresented what I had stated. All I've stated is that we all know what they meant just as we all know what some one means when they ask "Can you tell me the time?" Saying a deliberately incorrect RaI interpretation is just as valid as the clearly correct one is like saying it is just as valid that the RaI of a Space Marines toughness is 10 is just as valid as it being 4...

Like a poster above I agree RaI is not a great acronym. The Rules is a clearer phrase or RaD as in Rules as Designed. At the end of the day when we play the game we agree to play a game that GW designed. We all play by what we think is the RaI in general (I've yet to meet anyone that plays helmeted marines can't shoot or that FMCs don't have smash) yet YMDC and certain communities choose to selectively ignore that fact when there's an advantageous RaW reading they can abuse. The baffling attitude is that you should try to play as close to RaW as possible rather than as close to the rules as possible.

This is a clear cut case you know I know it everyone knows it. Some people have started trying to convince themselves that the RaW is correct merely because people keep repeating it and people want their grav weapons to be better. The attitude of "that's the rules until they FaQ it" is illustrative of that. You know that the FaQ will rule only 1 way yet you feel you are entitled to get away with it until the FaQ says no.

Wow, way to completely misread my statement.

Rules as designed doesn't work either, because YOU didn't design them, so you cannot claim that.

All the rest....what? The RAW isn't the RAW because it doesn't fit your interpretation? It is called Rules as Written because that is how they are written, in the book.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The baffling attitude is that you should try to play as close to RaW as possible rather than as close to the rules as possible.

What I find baffling is that after all this time you still think those are two different things.

The rules that are written in the rulebook, in the section entitled 'the rules' are the rules of the game. That's what a rulebook is.

The fact that the writer may have intended to write something completely different to what he actually did write is largely irrelevant to that. At the point that they issue an errata that corrects the rule to what he intended, what he intended becomes the rule. Until that point, the rule is what is in the book.

You are of course free to decide that the rule as written is silly, and agree with your opponent to play differently. But that doesn't make your interpretation the right one... Just the one that you choose to play by.

And no, we can't go by what makes the most sense to establish what was intended (assuming we choose to believe that what was intended matters at all...). Otherwise, we would all be ignoring the clear rules for casualty removal in favour of letting squad members pick up a fallen banner, for example.

Nor can we just assume that because a given interpretation makes the most sense that it will be how the faq will rule it. Not in an edition where the faqs have on several occasions now completely changed existing rules for no apparent reason to something less sensible (Battlements, anyone?)

You're free to assume that vehicles should get a cover save in this particular case despite the rules saying otherwise. But let's not get carried away with trying to brow-beat people into accepting what you believe to be the RAI as unarguable fact, hmm?

I don't know if it's still relevant due to the FAQs vanishing and so on, but they had the precedent from the Dark Eldar one that you could take a save against damage that wasn't a penetrating or glancing hit (and not even in the shooting phase).

Since the shooting attack from a grav weapon is closer to a normal shooting attack than a dangerous terrain test, I would say that making it ignore cover for vehicles (but not MCs or normal units) is an easter egg.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
think of this comparison:

A battlewagon with a kustom forcefield rolls onto a rock and rolls a "1" for difficult terrain, and is immobilised. does it get a cover save? no, because there are no glancing or penetrating hits to be saved.

A grav weapon rolls a "6" to damage a vehicle. the vehicle suffers an immobilised result & a hullpoint loss. does it get a cover save? no, because there are no glancing or penetrating hits to be saved.

This isn't the same as a wound, it's an effect. like a psychic power that reduces your models toughness, you don't get a cover save against that.

but dangerous terrain wounds ignore cover. so neither models, nor vehicles get a cover save from those wounds.

grav weapons allow saves for models

the thing is that a grav weapon doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit to a vehicle, as such there is no glancing or penetrating hit to be treated as a wound, so it can't be saved. As I said, it's an effect, like a psychic power that reduced a targets mobility, for example.

if they had said 'grav weapons cause a penetrating hit on the roll of a 6, and automatically class as rolling an immobilised result' then cover saves & invulns would be taken.

But vehicles can take saves against damage that's caused by something that's not a glancing or penetrating hit by precedent.

It's also telling how it doesn't ignore non-armour saves for MCs as well, which juxtaposes oddly if it ignores vehicle cover/invulnerable saves.

Daba, the problem with that FAQ is that it could only allow invulnerable saves and maybe only DA vehicles to take invul saves.

That is down to the players or TO to take a punt on until grav guns get faq'd. HIWPI is invul yes, cover no. The only time it came up was with 5 grav cannon centurions on my heldrake. The bird was dead either way.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Daba, the problem with that FAQ is that it could only allow invulnerable saves and maybe only DA vehicles to take invul saves.

That is down to the players or TO to take a punt on until grav guns get faq'd. HIWPI is invul yes, cover no. The only time it came up was with 5 grav cannon centurions on my heldrake. The bird was dead either way.

rigeld gave me his answer, so, now I'll ask you. What is your basis for allowing invuln saves but not cover? Both are taken against pens/glances. The only reason cover saves are not allowed against the closest similar mechanism (dangerous terrain), is because dangerous terrain specifically forbids cover saves.

I play it that way for a mostly fluffy reason tbh.
More mass => greater effect kinds thing.

The grav gun doesn't cause pens or glances and the DA shield works on things that don't cause pens and glances. I think that is consistent IMO but everyone has their own view on the RAI.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Daba, the problem with that FAQ is that it could only allow invulnerable saves and maybe only DA vehicles to take invul saves.

That is down to the players or TO to take a punt on until grav guns get faq'd. HIWPI is invul yes, cover no. The only time it came up was with 5 grav cannon centurions on my heldrake. The bird was dead either way.

A save is a save.

FAQs aren't erratas. They explain how things work, not change them. In that situation, the cover save isn't eligible because it is not in a shooting phase and not against a shooting attack. A similar situation but in the shooting phase against a shooting attack would allow any relevant saves. Apart from the specified eligibility (example: against AP, non shooting and so on for different saves), all saves are otherwise treated the same and follow the same rules.

There's also no fluff reason because MCs can be larger than a vehicle, and suffer the effects more being higher density as there are no empty spaces for crew and so on.

They do also change them, the issues or range and the wound pool for example.

Maybe you are right but again we need an FAQ as somethings have made wider precedent in the past while others haven't.

going by the summary section, page 427, second column line 7:

"if the vehicle is obscured or granted a saving throw from another source, it can attempt a saving throw against each glancing & penetrating hit."

saving throw, not cover saving throw, so no saves against grav weapons, as they do not cause glancing or penetrating hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as for comparing MC's with vehicles, the grav guns wound a monster like any other non-vehicle. if it were to, say, cause an underground explosion which causes the monster to move through difficult terrain in the next turn, you wouldn't get a save against it, would you?

What I find baffling is that after all this time you still think those are two different things. 

You find it baffling that I think RaW and RaI are two different things?

 FlingitNow wrote:

What I find baffling is that after all this time you still think those are two different things. 

You find it baffling that I think RaW and RaI are two different things?

No he means that you still seem to think the rules arent what is written in the book but something the designers wanted to write but didnt. Which leads to playing RAW isnt playing by the rules.

To be honest i also think that the designers didnt intend do let grav guns ignore cover. Still thats not what the rules they wrote say. Nothing to argue about that. If my opponent insists to play it that way - fine. In every single game where it would matter (competitive) theres a third instance to solve the problem.

 FlingitNow wrote:

What I find baffling is that after all this time you still think those are two different things. 

You find it baffling that I think RaW and RaI are two different things?

No we find it baffling that you see the rules on the page as different to what the rules are in no uncertain terms. More so that you call those that play the rules on the page cheaters.
RAW are the rules, RAI is an interpretation of those rules.

 some bloke wrote:
going by the summary section, page 427, second column line 7:

"if the vehicle is obscured or granted a saving throw from another source, it can attempt a saving throw against each glancing & penetrating hit."

saving throw, not cover saving throw, so no saves against grav weapons, as they do not cause glancing or penetrating hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as for comparing MC's with vehicles, the grav guns wound a monster like any other non-vehicle. if it were to, say, cause an underground explosion which causes the monster to move through difficult terrain in the next turn, you wouldn't get a save against it, would you?

pg 16, types of saving throws: saving throws = cover saves, armor saves and invuln saves.

It never ceases to amaze me the depths people will lower themselves to, just to eek out a perceived advantage for themselves.
Of course vehicles get saves from grav weapons. The precedent was set in the DE FAQ. Period. Any further arguing is stretching the rules to the breaking point just to make their list a tad better. That someone thought of this loophole (thats right, a loophole!) at all speaks volumes. If they wanted grav guns to ignore ALL COVER AND INVUL saves, they would have said so.
What is laughable, is that most times, the people so vehement and demanding on being a rules lawyer and stretching the rules to their advantage are no good at the game, and it doesn't help them at all in the long run.
And heaven help you if you bring up a fuzzy rule that goes against them! Then see how quickly they start screaming RAI not RAW!

Just my observation on some gamers in general, and not directed to any person here. I just couldn't believe what I was reading.