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.

 Anglacon wrote:
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.

No, the precedent set forth from the DE FAQ is for Invulnerable saves.

It can be extrapolated (I really hope I used that word correctly), that since grav weapons function similarly to Dangerous Terrain, and unlike Dangerous Terrain grav weapons do not mention ignoring cover saves, they would in fact allow cover saves.

Unfortunately this is all speculation, and people denying saves are in the right. I do disagree with someone allowing an invuln save but not cover saves.

 Anglacon wrote:
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.

Hi. I'm a Nid player. Are Grav guns in my codex? Nope. Do I have vehicles? Nope.
So I have literally no dog in this fight. I'm eeking out no advantage. Despite your statement to the contrary, your post is directed to people here and it's uninformed and offensive.

So as everyone can see this is a highly debated topic. Instead of offering more rules interpretations, I offer some information of how tournaments and other forums have ruled it, for comparison.
Can Cover/Invulns be taken against Grav shots?
Bay Open Area Tournament Yes.
40kGlobal No.
Astronomican RAW No. RAI Yes.
40kGT ETC FAQ No.
Svenka40k (Swedish tournaments) Yes.
Adepticon Tournament Yes.
Feast Of Blades Tournament Yes

rigeld2 wrote:
Despite your statement to the contrary, your post is directed to people here and it's uninformed and offensive.

Sadly, no. Despite your wrong assumption, my statement was not directed at anyone here at all. I stated it was not, so it is not.
That being said, if you were offended by a differing opinion that was not directed at you in any way, you are either reading WAY too much into things, or you really need to grow thicker skin.

And uninformed? Really? Uninformed?
Are all contrary positions to yours uninformed or just mine? I have been in this game for over 15 years, so I think I am quite well informed on most aspects of the game. I may be overstepping, but I feel my thoughts on the matter are just as good as yours, if not better.

So, please understand it was not my intention to make you feel all offended, but if you were, it is on you, not me.

 Anglacon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Despite your statement to the contrary, your post is directed to people here and it's uninformed and offensive.

Sadly, no. Despite your wrong assumption, my statement was not directed at anyone here at all. I stated it was not, so it is not.
That being said, if you were offended by a differing opinion that was not directed at you in any way, you are either reading WAY too much into things, or you really need to grow thicker skin.

By posting in this thread, you're addressing people participating in it. Simple fact.
Saying "I'm not addressing this to anyone in particular" while describing specific people, you are in fact addressing them.

I'm not addressing anyone in particular, but people who's nicks start with A are just rude.

And uninformed? Really? Uninformed?
Are all contrary positions to yours uninformed or just mine? I have been in this game for over 15 years, so I think I am quite well informed on most aspects of the game. I may be overstepping, but I feel my thoughts on the matter are just as good as yours, if not better.

Considering you said - as an absolute - that anyone advocating what the rules said was just looking for an advantage, and I advocate for what the rules say and I can gain no demonstrable advantage, yes I'd consider that uninformed.

So, please understand it was not my intention to make you feel all offended, but if you were, it is on you, not me.

Reported. Remember to be polite on this site please.

Reported for saying he didnt mean to offend you... Yeah... Perhaps the thin skin comment was accurate.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Reported for saying he didnt mean to offend you... Yeah... Perhaps the thin skin comment was accurate.

No, Reported for saying it was rigeld's fault that rigeld was offended.

For example, how would you feel if I said that people whose nickname consists of three upper case B's are idiots, and if you're offended it's your fault?

BarBoBot: I was going to say that, but was worried I would be reported yet again.

They don't cause a glance or pen so Vehicles can't take saves against them. It's very straightforward. People only say otherwise because they wish they could take saves.

SJPhillyVT wrote:
They don't cause a glance or pen so Vehicles can't take saves against them. It's very straightforward. People only say otherwise because they wish they could take saves.

And what saves are Tyranid players looking to garner?

I agree with rigeld, RAW, I disagree on HIWPI, but as neither of us play SM (he plays Nids, I play Nids and Eldar) on the off chance we ever played against each other it wouldn't come up.

 Happyjew wrote:


For example, how would you feel if I said that people whose nickname consists of three upper case B's are idiots, and if you're offended it's your fault?

See, this is what I am talking about.
Besides that being rather specific, which i wasn't, I think he should NOT be offended. Heck, you can come out and say "Hey, Anglacon, you're a blithering idiot!" and I would not be offended.
I would laugh.
You don't know me, I don't know you, why should I or anyone else care what you think.
Why should anyone care what I think? Am I that important?

I stated the rules as a fact as I interpret them. Others may disagree. Those that do, I feel may be stretching for advantage. Who the heck cares?

Good god, it is like walking on eggshells around here.

And the truth of the matter is, I was reported for not being "Polite".
On that, i disagree. I was very polite. He may not have agreed with what I said, but the fact Is I was reported for not being polite when i said he may be taking things too personally.

If saying "I didnt mean to offend, but if I did its you, not me" ruffles feathers so quickly, you wouldn't last a second around most of the people I hang with.

 BarBoBot wrote:
If saying "I didnt mean to offend, but if I did its you, not me" ruffles feathers so quickly, you wouldn't last a second around most of the people I hang with.

Not that I should have to justify myself...

It's the combination of posts and the response when he was called out. If a mod does nothing - fine. I don't care.
But telling me "oh, it's okay - I wasn't talking about you, just people who play by the rules" and I've said that I play by the rules, he's full of something.

is a roll of 6 a glancing or penetrating hit RAW?

wargamer1985 wrote:
is a roll of 6 a glancing or penetrating hit RAW?

nope, it simply causes an immobilised result and a hull point to be lost. (he said trying to get this thread back on track...)

rigeld2 wrote:
he's full of something.

Now this is so much more impolite than anything I ever said. Please report yourself.

RAW is not always correct.

As its been pointed out several times, by RAW, models with no eyes can not shoot.

Flying monstrous creatures do not have relentless, or smash, but "relentless smash"

There are times when RAW is wrong.

 BarBoBot wrote:
RAW is not always correct.

As its been pointed out several times, by RAW, models with no eyes can not shoot.

Flying monstrous creatures do not have relentless, or smash, but "relentless smash"

There are times when RAW is wrong.

Correct. And in the rules you cited it's obviously wrong.
It's not obviously wrong here.

There was a time not that long ago that people claimed the same thing about vehicles and ALL saves, because by perfectly clear RAW, vehicles could not take a save because saves were taken against wounds. Perfectly clear RAW.... Except certain vehicles came with invul saves.... So That perfectly clear RAW was wrong.

I fully believe the RAW on this is wrong mainly because we have a FaQ that sets a precedent that there are in fact times where vehicles get saves when no pen or glance has occurred.

The other reason I think its wrong, is that there is an established USR for ignoring cover saves, yet the weapon lacks any such rule.

Its my opinion that if they wanted it to ignore cover, it would have the USR.

Bojazz wrote:
So as everyone can see this is a highly debated topic. Instead of offering more rules interpretations, I offer some information of how tournaments and other forums have ruled it, for comparison.
Can Cover/Invulns be taken against Grav shots?
Bay Open Area Tournament Yes.
40kGlobal No.
Astronomican RAW No. RAI Yes.
40kGT ETC FAQ No.
Svenka40k (Swedish tournaments) Yes.
Adepticon Tournament Yes.
Feast Of Blades Tournament Yes

Thank you for taking the time to look these up and offer a genuine perspective how contested this is.

Looks like over 65% say yes to cover saves.

Truly thank you.

so my roll of 6 is not a glancing or penetrating hit...

and what are cover saves for vehicles explictly RAW as the C:SM fawq hasnt covered this pointer and with the codex being more upto date, and therefor advanced versus basic rules kick in:

Page 7: Basic Versus Advanced:
Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise. They iinclued the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale.

2A load of unimportant speel"

Where advanced rules apply to a specific mode, they always overrride and any contradicting basic rules.2more unimportant speel directly regarding a morale situation"#

On rare occassioons, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rule book, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.

taking out irrelevant poibnters in the text fpormated exactly as it is in the rule book. Including Bold Text

Then in the shooting section we are told how to resolve shots against a vehicle.In the case of a grav weapon only 1 part of this applies due to the above page 7 rule:

Roll to hit. END OF STORY

Advanced then kicks in for Grav Weapons: roll a D6 for each hit and take any 6's and apply an immobilized reults and a hull point of damage.

At what point have you rolled to Penetrate during this process? Wait for this one its a miracle: YOU HAVEN'T

And the final piece of evidence to shut anyone up who wants to claim saves:

Obviously a vehicle cannot Go To Ground, voluntarily or otherwise. If the target is obscured and suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, it must take a cover save.against it like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound ...

And while I don't have for example c:csm where invulnerable saves are covered I believe the wrding is pretty much the same for Invulnerables.

Now evidence ghas once again been put forward to deny saves so bring forth your so called evidence RAW as no faq currently covers this from the brb OR c:sm FAQ

wargamer1985 wrote:
And while I don't have for example c:csm where invulnerable saves are covered I believe the wrding is pretty much the same for Invulnerables.

Now evidence ghas once again been put forward to deny saves so bring forth your so called evidence RAW as no faq currently covers this from the brb OR c:sm FAQ

I shall now present my argument (again). I would first like to say that I agree RAW no saves. However, I do not think that it was intended for that. The first reason being that the rules for grav weapons do not have the Ignores Cover special rule, nor does the Graviton special rule mention models not being allowed saves. This in and of itself is not why.

Graviton weapons cause an Immobilized damage result and the loss of a HP. This sounds familiar, almost like...Dangerous Terrain. That said there are two notable differences between the two. First, and this is a minor difference, the D6 result needed to cause the damage. Since the FAQs specify that vehicles can take invuln saves against dangerous terrain, that sets a precedent for invulnerable saves (at least) to be taken against grav weapons.
Now what about cover saves? This brings me to the second difference. Dangerous Terrain specifically says models cannot take cover saves against it.
Now since, invulnerable saves and cover saves perform a similar function (protection against glances/pens) and precedent shows that vehicles are allowed to take invulnerable saves against damage that bypasses penetration rolls entirely, then logically, unless specified otherwise (such as Dangerous Terrain), if a model can take an invulnerable save, it can take a cover save (assuming it has one of course).

I concur with Happyjews logic

Happy dont forget that invunerable saves themselves may be taken againgst all forms of dmg unless they are specifically stated to not be allowed.

This is not the case with cover saves.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Happy dont forget that invunerable saves themselves may be taken againgst all forms of dmg unless they are specifically stated to not be allowed.

This is not the case with cover saves.

Not true. Per the BRB FAQ:

Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a penetrating or glancing hit. (I removed the part about wounds)

There is nothing else in the FAQ pertaining to vehicles and Invulnerable saves.

Per the Dark Eldar FAQ:

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a
Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

This specifies that an Invuln save can be taken against Dangerous Terrain tests, and do not mention other forms of damage. As such, strict RAW, only flickerfields can negate Dangerous Terrain, as no other wargear/special rule for vehicles allow it.

 Happyjew wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Happy dont forget that invunerable saves themselves may be taken againgst all forms of dmg unless they are specifically stated to not be allowed.

This is not the case with cover saves.

Not true. Per the BRB FAQ:

Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a penetrating or glancing hit. (I removed the part about wounds)

There is nothing else in the FAQ pertaining to vehicles and Invulnerable saves.

Per the Dark Eldar FAQ:

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a
Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

This specifies that an Invuln save can be taken against Dangerous Terrain tests, and do not mention other forms of damage. As such, strict RAW, only flickerfields can negate Dangerous Terrain, as no other wargear/special rule for vehicles allow it.

Excellent !

Thank you for all of your answers.

to those who say it would have 'ignores cover' if it was to ignore cover saves for vehicles, might I point out that they would then also ignore cover against infantry - as AP2 weaponry, that'd be ludicrously powerful. hence it doesn't ignore cover against infantry, only vehicles.

Bojazz wrote:
So as everyone can see this is a highly debated topic. Instead of offering more rules interpretations, I offer some information of how tournaments and other forums have ruled it, for comparison.
Can Cover/Invulns be taken against Grav shots?
Bay Open Area Tournament Yes.
40kGlobal No.
Astronomican RAW No. RAI Yes.
40kGT ETC FAQ No.
Svenka40k (Swedish tournaments) Yes.
Adepticon Tournament Yes.
Feast Of Blades Tournament Yes

40K global is someone posting on there, thats not from anyone that does the podcast (I will also add that person runs grav heavy bike lists). 40k GT allowed cover saves and invuls for Grav weapons last year, they use the basis of the ETC FAQ but with a few differences, you have linked to the latest ETC FAQ there (which is still not finished iirc).


Some Bloke, wounds are caused against infantry models, the BRB is quite clear on how to handle wounds and cover saves.

to those who say it would have 'ignores cover' if it was to ignore cover saves for vehicles, might I point out that they would then also ignore cover against infantry - as AP2 weaponry, that'd be ludicrously powerful. hence it doesn't ignore cover against infantry, only vehicles.

Have you heard of Gravstar? Anyway if they wanted the weapons to ignore cover and invulnerable saves they woukd have told you so. When reading GW rules it is always best to assume the status quo of a process and only change the parts they tell you to. Unfortunately they simply don't write rules tight enough to use RaW as the main basis of your understanding of their rules. The process here is changed at one point that point is the penetration roll everything else should therefore apply as usual.

RAW: No

HIWPI: Yes

I'd expect my opponent to raise the issue before the game if he wanted to play it this way and I'd probably only let him do it if I deemed it unimportant enough for me to really care about it, but I dislike these kind of rule interpretation because it is so obviously a loophole that the player is trying to exploit.

"You see, because my gun doesn't use the vehicle damage table, you don't get to benefit from those rules which includes invuln and cover saves..."

My rebuke is that if the designers had intended the gun to be used in that fashion then they should have put a special rule on the weapon that stated it has ignores cover, all saves against vehicle or something to that effect and that if they want to play a game with loopholes then I should be allowed to place warhound titans, overlords and anything else I can find into my warrior squads because it states "add D3 models" instead of "D3 necron warriors" in the repair barge rule of the ghost ark.