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.

Okay a mild dispute among my gaming group rose up recently concerning grav, specifically its effect on vehicles. no some maintain nothing is different from 6th, that the first hit will strip an HP and render the vehicle immobile and further grav successes will remove 2 HP each. However others, myself included feel that the rules listed under "Vehicle damage results and hull points" that 7th has changed that status quo and vehicles can now only lose 1 HP from grav. Which one is right, or is neither?

This debate may never be settled.

You may want to post parts of the relevent rules.

As far as I know, it's still the same as sixth.

Well while I cannot provide accurate page numbers based on my copy I can provide a rough idea where the section is at. My copy has it after the vehicle damage table and before vehicles and cover. On the same page its right under the rules for High AP Weapons and above Wrecked Vehicles. If someone else who has a physical book be so kind as to get the proper page it would be most helpful.

The rules are even more clear now.

pg 76.

"Any immobilized results suffered by an already immobilized vehicle instead remove an additional hull point"

"On a 6 a vehicle suffers a immobilized result and a hull point"

Failing to see where the problem is. They suffer an immobilized result. If they are already immobilized then that is turned into a extra hull point.

The problem is the rule on the page that escapes me says...

Wehicle Damage Results and Hull Points
Occasionally, a rule will state that a vehicle will suffer the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed, or immobilized result. Unless that rule also specifies that the vehicles suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or otherwise states that the vehicles loses a Hull Point, only the relevant result on the Vehicle Damage chart is applied to the vehicle and no Hull Points are lost."

To me that reads as unless the special rule says it removes extra hull points it doesn't.

Right but that is making reference to an effect outside, like for example concussive causes a crew stunned result. That doesnt result in an additional hull point.

That is referencing when JUST the result is applied. Even then for immobilized it would still work as it specifically states in immobalized that they lose an additional hull point.

I disagree as it includes immobilized results in the rule. Sadly it would seem that i am in the minority on this, going off the poll. Perhaps its merely my judgement being clouded as I've always thought Grav was too good stripping 2HP.

Other than people not wanting it too, I can't see a reason two grav hits don't remove 3HP.

 arinnoor wrote:
I disagree as it includes immobilized results in the rule. Sadly it would seem that i am in the minority on this, going off the poll. Perhaps its merely my judgement being clouded as I've always thought Grav was too good stripping 2HP.

Except you are missing the end part where it says "Unless it specifically states the the vehicle loses a hullpoint" which the rules for immobilized says it does.

@Lobukia: How do you come to 3HP lost?

@Leth: I saw that and noted it, but felt that it had no impact as it isn't the rule but grav. I would like to ask then if there is a point in bringing up immobilization in that section then? Cause you can read it like "Occasionally, a rule will state that a vehicle will suffer the effects of a immobilized result. Unless that rule also specifies that the vehicles suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or otherwise states that the vehicles loses a Hull Point, only the relevant result on the Vehicle Damage chart is applied to the vehicle and no Hull Points are lost". Why bring up that inflicting immobilization on a vehicle does not remove HP without specific say so if immobilization already says so?

So it mentions immobilzed for when things happen like getting stuck in dangerous terrain which just cause you to be immoblized or drop pods landing which just cause you to be immobilized... In any circumstance whatever happens if a second immob is applied the rules on the vehicle damage are very clear you cannot suffer it again so lose a hull point instead thus grav guns cause 3 hp of damage on two success.

 arinnoor wrote:
@Lobukia: How do you come to 3HP lost?

Hit number 1 - 1 HP loss + Immobilized.
Hit number 2 - 1 HP loss + Immobilized -> becomes 1 HP loss + 1 HP loss due to being Immobilized already.

 Happyjew wrote:

 arinnoor wrote:
@Lobukia: How do you come to 3HP lost?

Hit number 1 - 1 HP loss + Immobilized.
Hit number 2 - 1 HP loss + Immobilized -> becomes 1 HP loss + 1 HP loss due to being Immobilized already.

This is exactly right, where is the confusion again? Are people suggesting that it doesn't apply the immobilised result the second time, thus removing only 1 hull point? Some rules interpretations on YMDC are legitimately confusing, this one isn't!

@random_man: I see it as damage is not applied for further immobilization results because it doesn't specifically say so, and from the Vehicle Damage and Hull Points section if it doesn't specifically say so then you don't remove additional hull points. That is how I read it.

Good thing thats not the correct way to read it.


Grav already got a nerf with the allowance to take cover saves againgst it. It certainly didnt need any more nerfs.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Good thing thats not the correct way to read it.


Grav already got a nerf with the allowance to take cover saves againgst it. It certainly didnt need any more nerfs.

Thats not a nerf, its a clarification to those jackasses who claimed that a weapon that din't have anywhere a rule that says "ignore cover" or "ignore invul saves", could do it.

it was an interpretation problem that all the Shenanigans jumped on it.

i personnaly would have bitch slapped out of existence any gakker who would have pulled that on me.

I bet you would not have acctually.


Grav ignored cover because either they forgot about how they worded cover saves or because it was originally intended to be that way.


I think they only changed it because so many people sent them hate mails about it.


Fluff wise, it deals damage in the same manner as dangerous terrain so you shouldnt get a save againgst it other than invunerable.

I'm not sure I understand the confusion. The Grav weapon inflicts an immobilized result and a hull point. The second time a grav weapon rolls a six the second immobilization is converted to a hull point because that's what it says to do in the vehicle damage chart. The Grav weapon isn't inflicting two hull points, simply the immobilization is converted to a hull point because a vehicle can't be immobilized twice.

It seems pretty straight forward to me.

Eihnlazer wrote:
I bet you would not have acctually.


Grav ignored cover because either they forgot about how they worded cover saves or because it was originally intended to be that way.


I think they only changed it because so many people sent them hate mails about it.


Fluff wise, it deals damage in the same manner as dangerous terrain so you shouldnt get a save againgst it other than invunerable.

And as we all know, GW do often change their rules due to disgruntled fans.

 arinnoor wrote:
The problem is the rule on the page that escapes me says...

Wehicle Damage Results and Hull Points
Occasionally, a rule will state that a vehicle will suffer the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed, or immobilized result. Unless that rule also specifies that the vehicles suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or otherwise states that the vehicles loses a Hull Point, only the relevant result on the Vehicle Damage chart is applied to the vehicle and no Hull Points are lost."

To me that reads as unless the special rule says it removes extra hull points it doesn't.

Grav results in an immobilized result, not simply "the effects of" an immobilized result, so that statement really does not apply.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Grav results in an immobilized result, not simply "the effects of" an immobilized result, so that statement really does not apply.

Then the rule does nothing, not that it would surprise me about GW writing.

 arinnoor wrote:
The problem is the rule on the page that escapes me says...

Wehicle Damage Results and Hull Points
Occasionally, a rule will state that a vehicle will suffer the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed, or immobilized result. Unless that rule also specifies that the vehicles suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or otherwise states that the vehicles loses a Hull Point, only the relevant result on the Vehicle Damage chart is applied to the vehicle and no Hull Points are lost."

To me that reads as unless the special rule says it removes extra hull points it doesn't.

To me that rule says if the vehicle suffers the effects of a result (but not the actual result) and doesn't specify a hull point is lost then no hull point is lost. Such as Drop Pods when deployed. Grav weapons do not fit into this rule because its not the effect, but it is treated as if you actually rolled an Immobilized result and it specifies that a hull point is lost.

 arinnoor wrote:
I see it as damage is not applied for further immobilization results because it doesn't specifically say so...

But it DOES specifically say so. What are you even talking about?

Pyrian wrote:

 arinnoor wrote:
I see it as damage is not applied for further immobilization results because it doesn't specifically say so...

But it DOES specifically say so. What are you even talking about?

Grav does not in any way specifically state that, not one can possible say it does.

Grav specifically states that you lose a hull point. Immobilization specifically states that you lose a hull point. At no point in time are you ever losing a hull point by implication. Both of them are specifically called for. There is no way to claim that your favorite quote is triggered by anything at all. I mean, it fails the first step - is Grav a rule that does not specify that you lose a hull point? No. Then, it fails the second step - it says you apply the relevant result, which you're claiming you do not.

 arinnoor wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Grav results in an immobilized result, not simply "the effects of" an immobilized result, so that statement really does not apply.

Then the rule does nothing, not that it would surprise me about GW writing.

I'm fairly sure there are special rules and/or weapons that specifically state they cause the target to "suffer the *effects* of" any one of those 4 results, rather than "suffer a *insert result here*".

And even if not, following the steps would result in the hull point loss for any subsequent immobilized result, because that is what the Immobilised result actually tells us to do.

Graviton : the target suffers an Immobilised result and loses a single Hull Point
Immobilised : Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle instead remove an additional Hull Point

Very specifically stated that the vehicle is to remove a hull point as it is already immobilized (and you don't have permission to NOT remove the hull point from the successful grav hit either, which means any grav hit on an already immobilized vehicle removes 2 HP)

*sigh* Again and again it seems to go on at this point I'm more tried then anything else.

I've explained my reasoning time after time and all that has been said is I'm wrong cause you apply the result. Well that may be the case, but then when would that rule come into play hm? When would you apply an immobilization effect, not be specifically told to lose a hull point, and therefore not lose it? I read Grav and see it does apply an immobilization, it (Grav, not anything else), does not say you lose an additional hull point merely the one for a successful grav. Personally I don't see why grav needs to be so good and find my interpretation to balance it out between the other specials, but again I seem to be in the minority. Oh well until an official word comes out I guess it doesn't matter much what was said here, but at least my goals were met in seeing how it was received in the community. Locally I'll do as always, check with the TO.

 arinnoor wrote:
*sigh* Again and again it seems to go on at this point I'm more tried then anything else.

I've explained my reasoning time after time and all that has been said is I'm wrong cause you apply the result. Well that may be the case, but then when would that rule come into play hm? When would you apply an immobilization effect, not be specifically told to lose a hull point, and therefore not lose it?

I understand the frustration, however, the immobilization result specifically states to remove a HP on an already immobilized vehicle, so the rule is satisfied. The very same sentence calls out all of the other results as well (which do not call for a hull point removal, but some have argued in the past that there should be, even without the pen/glance, simply for suffering the effects of). Adding in the immobilization result is a) smart writing (to cover all bases) and c) future proofing (in the event that one effect does not already have a source).

I read Grav and see it does apply an immobilization, it (Grav, not anything else), does not say you lose an additional hull point merely the one for a successful grav.

No, but it does say a hull point + immobilization. Move to immobilization and you are told, as it is already immobilized, to remove a hull point.

Personal opinion on Grav being "so good" varies too. There are just as many who think Grav is worthless except in very specific circumstances, which would very much balance out how good it may be.

*Edit... drop pods and dangerous terrain come into play, so the rule does have a reason.