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.

 FlingitNow wrote:
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.

I think it is a mistake to assume status quo when you are dealing with things beyond it, many new rules tend to ignore the process entirely. For example people trying to put restrictions on vector strike by assuming it must function similarly to shooting attacks with LOS etc.
For most things RAW is fine. How many attacks do I have, what do I roll to hit etc are perfectly clear raw.

sonicaucie wrote:
My rebuke is that if the designers had intended the gun to be used in that fashion...

To which the response is 'What does what the designers intended have to do with what the rules say?'

If they intended for the rules to work differently to how they wrote them, and subsequently want the game played as per their intention rather than the printed rules, well, that's what Errata is for.

 some bloke wrote:
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.

That's not how it works at all. Part of the problem here is that people are using the words 'Ignores Cover' when they shouldn't. Ignores Cover is a special rule, it has a very specific and well defined meaning within the scope of 40k - i.e weapons/models with this rule do not allow cover saves to be taken against them. Grav Guns do not have this rule, and saying that they Ignore Cover or even Ignore Cover against vehicles is not correct.

The reason vehicles do not get cover saves against Grav is because they have their own special rules for damaging vehicles which completely skip the step where you would even check to see if you have a cover save let alone take the cover save. It would be more accurate to say that Grav have an 'Ignore the Normal Damage process' special rule rather than 'Ignores Cover', because that is a more accurate summary of how they work. RAW I think its pretty clear you don't get cover, this is how I rule it for the tournaments I run, but would be quite happy playing it the other way in a pick up game because RAI it makes no sense. The only way you are going to be able to take a cover save for vehicles against Grav is if you rework their rules for damaging vehicles - i.e this is really something that needs an Errata rather than an FAQ because the rules for Grav only cover the most straightforward cases (shooting infantry and vehicles out of cover). We also have no definative way to deal with shooting at a unit with mixed armour saves. The Flickerfield ruling gives you a precedent because it specifically says that you can take an invulnerable save against the actual damage result, but by itself is not enough to change the RAW ruling (it just supports the RAI ruling).

At the very least I think everyone on both sides of this argument can agree that the rules for Grav are written terribly.

MarkyMark wrote:
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)

Thanks for the corrections! I was not aware of either of those facts, and will especially consider the one about 40k GT in the future.

So again I issue the challenge: as the this forums rules: Show me where in the GW BRB or C:SM/C:SM FAQ it says that you get cover or Invul saves against grav weapons for vehicles?

wargamer1985 wrote:
So again I issue the challenge: as the this forums rules: Show me where in the GW BRB or C:SM/C:SM FAQ it says that you get cover or Invul saves against grav weapons for vehicles?

Show me where it says they have the ignores cover special rule.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

wargamer1985 wrote:
So again I issue the challenge: as the this forums rules: Show me where in the GW BRB or C:SM/C:SM FAQ it says that you get cover or Invul saves against grav weapons for vehicles?

Show me where it says they have the ignores cover special rule.

Since they obviously don't since infantry can take cover saves

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/564315.page

wargamer1985 wrote:
So again I issue the challenge: as the this forums rules: Show me where in the GW BRB or C:SM/C:SM FAQ it says that you get cover or Invul saves against grav weapons for vehicles?

This can be easily be rebutted by asking explicitly where does it say they ignore cover.

Is there a line which states "vehicles gain no benefit from cover or invulnerable saves when taking hits from this weapon"?

The answer is of course no.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Is there a line which states "vehicles gain no benefit from cover or invulnerable saves when taking hits from this weapon"?

There doesn't need to be. In order for vehicles to take a cover save, they need to follow the rules for vehicles taking cover saves... which don't provide any mechanism for them to take the save in this particular situation.

 insaniak wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Is there a line which states "vehicles gain no benefit from cover or invulnerable saves when taking hits from this weapon"?

There doesn't need to be. In order for vehicles to take a cover save, they need to follow the rules for vehicles taking cover saves... which don't provide any mechanism for them to take the save in this particular situation.

If it doesn't say that it ignores cover, then it is not RAW. What you have is an interpretation of a loophole in the rules. Rather than following the rules for all other weapons that do not include the "ignores cover" tag in their profile, you are instead creating a rule due to your own understanding.

Rules are laid out in writing, they are not inferred. If it should ignore cover, then it would say so.

"... suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, ..."

A Glancing or Penetrating Hit. Which of these did the Grav Gun inflict?

Chrysis wrote:
"... suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, ..."

A Glancing or Penetrating Hit. Which of these did the Grav Gun inflict?

Immobilized result for difficult terrain, which does it inflict? Neither. Can you take an invulnerable save? Yes.
So there is a precedent for vehicles getting saves when receiving damage which is not through glancing or penetrating hits.
(Obviously you do not get cover saves against damage caused by driving through cover).

Care to explain how this holds up to your theory that vehicles only get saves vs glancing and penetrating hits?

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Rules are laid out in writing, they are not inferred. If it should ignore cover, then it would say so.

Here's the problem, though - the argument that no cover save is allowed is the one that is following the printed rules. Allowing the cover save requires the assumption that it is supposed to be allowed, but was just an oversight in the rules.


As has been pointed out, there is a very specific criteria for the vehicle to take a save. The damage from the Grav gun does not match that criteria... therefore, the rule allowing you to take a cover save simply doesn't apply.

If it is not explicit, then it is not a rule. Only an interpretation.

You are free to believe it, but I wouldn't play you.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

Chrysis wrote:
"... suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, ..."

A Glancing or Penetrating Hit. Which of these did the Grav Gun inflict?

Immobilized result for difficult terrain, which does it inflict? Neither. Can you take an invulnerable save? Yes.
So there is a precedent for vehicles getting saves when receiving damage which is not through glancing or penetrating hits.
(Obviously you do not get cover saves against damage caused by driving through cover).

Care to explain how this holds up to your theory that vehicles only get saves vs glancing and penetrating hits?

GW put in an exception for a specific piece of wargear in a specific situation, namely the Flickerfield vs. Dangerous Terrain.

The rulebook explicitly forbids mixing the special rules from multiple Close Combat Weapons, yet they allow the Grey Knight Dreadknight to do so in the Grey Knight FAQ. Is this permission to ignore inconvenient parts of the rulebook for everyone or is it specific to certain models and wargear in the Grey Knights codex?

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
If it is not explicit, then it is not a rule. Only an interpretation.

You are free to believe it, but I wouldn't play you.

So I can claim a 2+ invulnerable save on my marines, because there is no rule that explicitly says they don't have one?

Or do I refer to the rules on saves and apply them as they actually say to apply them?

The GW clarification on difficult terrain is the closest type of damage to that caused by a grav gun to a vehicle. Whilst it of course does not disprove that grav guns will not allow cover saves,
it does stand as evidence against the statement that "invulnerable saves can only be takes against glancing and penetrating hits". It shows that it is not all encompassing, and there may be exceptions against this.
With this in mind, it is not fair to create rules for the grav gun when they are not explicitly written, because there may be alternatives.
A safer bet is to maintain the status quo of standard weapons, which allow cover, rather than create your own rules made from interpretations, until an FAQ resolves the issue.

So I can claim a 2+ invulnerable save on my marines, because there is no rule that explicitly says they don't have one?
Or do I refer to the rules on saves and apply them as they actually say to apply them?

Codex CM explicitly states that they have power armour. Power armour states that its save is 3+.
Grav guns do not explicitly state that they ignore cover. What is your point?

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
The GW clarification on difficult terrain is the closest type of damage to that caused by a grav gun to a vehicle. Whilst it of course does not disprove that grav guns will not allow cover saves,
it does stand as evidence against the statement that "invulnerable saves can only be takes against glancing and penetrating hits". It shows that it is not all encompassing, and there may be exceptions against this.
With this in mind, it is not fair to create rules for the grav gun when they are not explicitly written, because there may be alternatives.
A safer bet is to maintain the status quo of standard weapons, which allow cover, rather than create your own rules made from interpretations, until an FAQ resolves the issue.

So I can claim a 2+ invulnerable save on my marines, because there is no rule that explicitly says they don't have one?
Or do I refer to the rules on saves and apply them as they actually say to apply them?

Codex CM explicitly states that they have power armour. Power armour states that its save is 3+.
Grav guns do not explicitly state that they ignore cover. What is your point?

I disagree. The closest is Jaws of the World Wolf. It bypasses all the standard wounding procedures and goes directly to the result (you are dead). Much like Grav Guns bypass rolling to penetrate and inflicting Glancing/Penetrating in favour of proceeding straight to the results (you are immobilised.) Do you give people cover saves against Jaws of the World Wolf? Of course not, it doesn't inflict wounds. Which is exactly the reasoning GW gave in the FAQ for why it doesn't need Ignores Cover.

So why should you give vehicles cover saves against Grav Guns? They don't inflict Glancing or Penetrating hits, which are what is normally required to qualify for a save. Neither are they Immobilised Results caused by Dangerous Terrain, which is another possible exception that has been carved out for vehicle Invulnerable saves. GW has not seen fit to give any other criteria for qualifying, so the damage from Grav Guns doesn't qualify.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
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.

I think it is a mistake to assume status quo when you are dealing with things beyond it, many new rules tend to ignore the process entirely. For example people trying to put restrictions on vector strike by assuming it must function similarly to shooting attacks with LOS etc.
For most things RAW is fine. How many attacks do I have, what do I roll to hit etc are perfectly clear raw.

Vector strike isn't a shooting attack and has no shooting profile. LoS is irrelevant because it tells you to use random allocation and how to select your target (i.e. it tells you to change the status quo at times LoS would be relevant).

Yes RaW is fine most of the time but it has many glaring issues like Destroyer weapons, models eyes, FMCs, repair barges etc. The issue here is the attitude to what RaI is. RaI is literally by definition the rules, it is the rules designed by the GW design team.Now my interpretation of RaI is simply that my interpretation and has asuch weight as anyone else's. People on here often confuse the two. You are abusing RaW if you know that an FaQ will rule against you but follow RaW anyway. Like the attitude of a poster below that states this needs an Errata rather than FaQ to allow cover saves when it clearly does not. Because the rules don't need to change because they are clear as is to be honest it shouldn't even need an FaQ and it is a sad indictment of the gaming community that it does. But a simple yes to a FaQ question of do vehicles get cover/invuns against grav weapons is enough.

What you could argue needs an Errata is how to handle mixed save units as the communicated rules give us literally no help here. Though most people follow the status quo of how mixed toughness works as you are intercepting the to wound roll process.

JotWW has always been a special snowflake that ignores practically all the rules of the game, to the point where one wonders if it was actually designed with the 40k ruleset in mind at all. No rolls to hit, wound, invulnerable saves Look out sir, and also no eternal warrior. Its effect of "remove model from play" operates beyond most of the rulebook, and is a trait shared with only a handful of other special abilities. When a model is removed due to JotWW, it follows a totally alternate set of rules to those which are normally followed when a model is hit with a standard weapon.


Grav guns operate as a standard shooting attack, with a special addition with regards to damaging vehicles.
They still operate withing the normal bounds of gameplay, they have to hit, roll to wound, and allow cover saves as normal. The damage they inflict vs vehicles is the exact result of a penetrating hit that has rolled an immobilized result on the damage table. The only exception of course is that it does not outright call this a penetrating hit.

Grav guns still follow the more standard rules of the games than JotWW.

Lets look at the quote from the BRB pg 75. that is causing the issue:

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.

So the " suffers a glancing or penetrating hit" is where the pro grav gun side get a lot of their argument from. Of course grav guns do not state that they cause them so there us merit to it. However we have seen examples where vehicles have been given saves against damage which is not a penetrating or glancing hit, so this is not a definitive answer.

If the first line does not conclude the discussion, then we may look at the next line, which makes things more contested. "it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound"
Grav guns don't ignore cover vs other targets, and the rulebook states it should be exactly like you would do vs other targets.

Personally I am of the mind that the issue is a loophole in the rules, with no possible method of ascertaining the correct answer due to evidence for both sides. However, because there is no clear conclusion, the method used until an FAQ is released should be that which is currently used by all weapons that do not employ the ignores cover USR.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

If the first line does not conclude the discussion, then we may look at the next line, which makes things more contested. "it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound"

You can't lift out half of a sentence and them apply it to whatever context suits your needs.

The rule you quoted is an 'if' statement. If 'x', then 'y'. If 'x' doesn't occur, you don't get to skip to 'y' anyway. 'y' doesn't happen, because the trigger for it is absent.

In this specific case, the trigger for rolling the save is the vehicle suffering a glance or pen. If that occurs, then you can roll a save add you would for a non-vehicle model.

That's the issue here. Its not that the grav gun ignores cover. It's that the grav gun doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit, so there is no reason, without a specific rule that says to do so anyway, to roll a save.

 insaniak wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

If the first line does not conclude the discussion, then we may look at the next line, which makes things more contested. "it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound"

You can't lift out half of a sentence and them apply it to whatever context suits your needs.

The rule you quoted is an 'if' statement. If 'x', then 'y'. If 'x' doesn't occur, you don't get to skip to 'y' anyway. 'y' doesn't happen, because the trigger for it is absent.

In this specific case, the trigger for rolling the save is the vehicle suffering a glance or pen. If that occurs, then you can roll a save add you would for a non-vehicle model.

That's the issue here. Its not that the grav gun ignores cover. It's that the grav gun doesn't cause a glancing or penetrating hit, so there is no reason, without a specific rule that says to do so anyway, to roll a save.

I didn't lift half a sentence. Read my point again. I stated that because there is a precedent that some vehicle damage does not cause a glancing or penetrating hit, yet saves may be taken against it, then the first part of the rules is now brought into contestation. Therefore, other parts of the evidence which succeed it may be evaluated.

Yes, and do those other rules mention grav guns? No? Then there is no precedent.

You don't get to get past the "if" unless you have a rule allowing it. You don't have a rule allowing it.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
I stated that because there is a precedent that some vehicle damage does not cause a glancing or penetrating hit, yet saves may be taken against it, then the first part of the rules is now brought into contestation.

It's not, though.

That rule allows you to take a save against a glancing or penetrating hit.

Other specific statements may allow you to take a save against something else. That doesn't invalidate that statement in regards to cover saves. It simply gives another way that a vehicle may gain permission to take a save in a different specific situation.

It doesn't set a precedent for anything. In a different game, it might. But this is a game where a character who doesn't take up a FOC slot may or may not count towards compulsory limits, where bikers may use 2 close combat weapons or only 1, where special abilities may or may not apply to units in transports, or where 'removed as a casualty' and 'removed from the play' are two different things... except when they're not. And all completely arbitrarily depending on which codex a given FAQ is for, with (generally) no reasoning given for those differences. So the fact that they ruled that the flickerfield allows a save against terrain immobilisation does not in any way mean that the next FAQ won't include an answer to a similar rules question along the lines of 'No, vehicles only get saves from glancing or penetrating hits'.

Believe there is no precedent if you wish. Most tournaments seem to be coming down on the side of allowing cover, as are a larger majority of the players (taking the dakka poll as an example).

Now this debate has been going on for months, and there is no certain correct answer. Only restating old facts.
I'll wait for an faq, and firmly believe that they will allow cover when and if it is released. Until then, in my games they will be allowing it.

 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.

And this is YMDC which is all about the RAW in all it's grand stupidity. By pure raw, yes models with out eyes can't shot., models with eye's not facing a target can't get LOS and tons of other weird silliness. But that is the point of YMDC, determine RAW, see if you can make it work, and present HYWPI solutions marked as such for the unplayable silly.

YMDC is not just all about RAW...

Its been assumed by many people that it is, but its not true. Go ahead and read that quote I have listed in my sig.

That quote is a response from a mod to someone claiming the same thing you do.

 BarBoBot wrote:
YMDC is not just all about RAW...

Its been assumed by many people that it is, but its not true. Go ahead and read that quote I have listed in my sig.

That quote is a response from a mod to someone claiming the same thing you do.

Except the RAW in this case isn't absurd.

No, but it shows that YMDC is not just a RAW discussion forum.

The vast majority of players are not RAW purists.