Grav-Weaponry and Its Dramatic Effect on Our Game


Grav-Weaponry has created a lot of noise lately for the new Space Marine codex, and rightfully it should. As a Dark Eldar player, I see grav-weaponry like an advanced form of poison weapons. They have their place, and do a very specific job. (no i have really sat down and tried work both into lists yet).

There is also some serious controversy that comes with these weapons.


First off, lets look at the Grav-Weapons.
They are AP2 and would based on the armour save of the opponent. So a 3+ save would wound on a 3+.
Most are also Salvo weapons (not the pistol). The Grav-gun is a 18" 2/3, and the Grav-Cannon is a 24"  3/5. This means the Grav-weapon is great if fired from a model that is relentless, and much more limited to one that is not. Lucky though for Marine players, these guns can be fitted onto bikes (grav-guns) and centurions (Grav-Cannons).

via the Space Marine codex
Grav-Weaponry affects the local gravity field, using its victim's mass against them, an ordeal that will stun those it does not kill outright.  

Space Marine bikes
Here you get the best of both worlds when you take a grav-gun. You get two per squad, and can move 12 and fire 18 with 3 shots. Best of all, each gun also comes with a twin linked boltgun, so you obviously have the options to fire them and mow down lightly armoured targets. Great range, flexibility, and the squad can still take a melta bomb, or even an attack bike with a multi-melta.

Centurions
Hugely expensive, but able to field the awesome power of the grav-cannon, firing 5 grav shots into your opponents at 24". move 6 fire 24. Not to mention that the centurion can still keep his hurricane bolter, to add to this anti infantry killing machine. Did I mention they come with a grav-amp (re-rolls to wound for the grav cannon. When rapid firing with the hurricane bolter (move 6 fire 12, the Centurion can fire an amazing 11 shots per model)

Against vehicles
For vehicles, once you hit, you must roll a 6 on a d6 to remove a hull point and immobilize your target.

Controversy.
Of course people are going nuts. There is a heated argument on the rules of these guns regarding cover saves for vehicles, and hull points.

It goes like this.
On the vehicle damage table: An immobilized result removes a hull point. Any additional immobilized result suffered on an already immobilized vehicle instead removes an additional hull point.

So people are saying that if you immobilize the vehicle, and then do it again that the additional hull point is removed, thereby doing 3 hull points of damage with two results.

Opinion: Failure. This does one thing this interpretation is forgetting. You do not roll on the Vehicle Damage Chart. It says in the rules for the gun. 1-5 nothing happens. On a 6 the vehicle is immobilized and loses a hull point. Grav-weapons have their own chart, and do not use the brb vehicle damage table in the rulebook where that rule is listed.

Regarding cover saves. This one I have spent little time with, but it seems like you would get your cover saves. People are claiming that because you do not roll on the vehicle damage table (that the brb says) you can only take a cover save before rolling on the vehicle damage table. Ive quickly read through the cover rules again, but did not see what they are talking about. However the Space Marine codex says this explicitly, When resolving a hit against a vehicle, roll a d6 for each hit instead of rolling for the armour penetration as normal.  

Your take on the Grav rules?
Please discuss the rules, and not slam each other.

Post a Comment

182 Comments

  1. oh boy, here comes the storm.

    For my part, I believe that you would lose three hull points with two shots. Because the rule doesn't say that you're immobilized, it says that you suffer an "immobilized result". If you consult the rule book, on page 74, under the immobilized result, it specifically says each one past the fist simply removes an additional hull point. If it were a case that you were just immobilized then you wouldn't lose the additional hull point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Completely agree. It says you suffer an immobilized result. Which is clearly explains what it is in the rulebook. It does not simply said that the vehicle is immobilized.

      Delete
    2. I also agree, and I'll also reference Vehicles taking a Dangerous terrain test. In that rule entry it says suffers immobilized result (From the VDT). That the Dangerous test specifies the Immobilized "Result" is a Result from the table, says everything I need to know. Grav weapons say "result" the only location in any rules that gives you a result specifying Immobilized is the Vehicle Damage Table.

      Cover Saves. IMO, also allowed. The fact they are not specifically denied by the weapon, and all weapons that DO ignore cover specifically define that, is enough for me.

      Delete
    3. I think removing the word "result" would clarify things. It's referring to a table that the weapon's rules say you don't use (because you don't penetrate any armour), hence the confusion.

      Delete
    4. Grav weapon have is own speacial rules, remember special rules override BRB rules. Also it said you don't roll to pnetrated the tank, instead you roll 1D6 and on a 6, you have a effect on the tank.
      Since the Immobilize rule in the the Penetrating table and you don't roll on it. 2hits = Immobilize and 2HP lost.

      People need to stop taking every piece of rules to there own advantage...

      Delete
    5. as an aside, I also think it's lazy writing on GWs part to refer to the table.

      There should have been a proper section in the main rules for "Immobilized Vehicles," which could have used the "can't move/pivot but can shoot" description.

      Dangerous Terrain and Grav Weapons could have pointed to this section and the VDT could have said "5 - Immobilized: The vehicle is immobilized (see page X). Any further rolls of this result remove an extra hull point instead."

      Instead we get the current confusion.

      But that's just my 2 pence worth ;)

      Delete
    6. @Chris: Yes, if that were to happen it certainly would fall in line with your opinion, but the discussion isn't about how we can change the wording to make it work the way you want.

      That being said, I will gladly pay cash money* to anybody who can reference the rule that explicitly states that because you didn't roll for armor penetration, you don't reference the immobilized result on the vehicle damage chart.

      *Will not actually pay cash money

      Delete
    7. It's the dangerous terrain test all over again.

      There it is the same thing. Roll a 1 and you suffer an immobilized result. And the BRB FAQ clarified that you lose a hullpoint too.

      Concerning the cover saves, it's a shooting attack, so you get a cover save. Not getting a cover saves seem to come from those people that also say that "ignore cover" does not work on vehicles.

      Delete
    8. As a die-hard Marine player of nearly 20 years, my opinion on the rule is not the way I'd *like* it to to work - I'd love to be able to wipe out any tank in one round of shooting from my Tactical squad with a Grav-gun and Grav-pistol. My suggestion was for how GW could clear this up - remove one word and we know it's a single HP. Keep it in and we know it's multiple.

      I just believe that particular interpretation is wrong. RAW can be legitimately interpreted both ways (or this debate wouldn't be happening on EVERY 40K fan site) and I don't think it's RAI either.

      But if I'm proved mistaken later I won't mind, cos I'll be blowing up Land Raiders till the cows come home!

      Delete
    9. Your opinion is on how to change the wording of the rule so that it can be in line with how you *think* the rule should work. However, I'm talking about how to correctly interpret the rule as-is, so there is no relevance.

      Delete
    10. @Doug when do they make the save though? The Obscured Target rules, also on pg 74, specify that vehicles that are obscured can take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits, and it's established that grav weapons cause neither. So when as a vehicle do I roll my cover saves from grav weapons if they don't cause what I take saves against? It needs an FAQ.

      Delete
    11. Due to that wording, I'm in agreement with you.

      My initial reaction when I first read this rule was the opposite.

      I am ultimately in the opinion that GW intended that only one hull point is removed per result, but, until it is FAQ'd additional immobilized results eat a hull point (in my opinion).

      Delete
    12. "People need to stop taking every piece of rules to there own advantage..."

      I wish people would stop with misattribution bias. Your reading of the book is based on your impression of what the rules say. I have only ever seen a handful of misinterpretations that were willful, the rest are due to the low quality of rules writing from GW. There is no right answer, if the wording is ambiguous, which this is, then the fault is exclusively with the author.

      Delete
    13. at the end of the day people should error on the side of it does not take the extra hull point and keep prodding GW for a FAQ.....

      Ian Logsdon said it correct...
      Remember
      Rule number one never use a rule that is in question to gain an advantage...So you may or may not lose a few games...man up and fine a way to win....push through ...that is what a space marine would do...and when it gets faq'ed then lay it on them...or accept that you played within the spirit of the rules...Or you can just be that douch bag that everyone hates and talks about behind your back

      Delete
    14. They should've made a damage table that said:

      1. Immobilized
      2. Immobilized
      3. Immobilized
      4. Immobilized
      5. Immobilized
      6. Immobilized

      And had everyone roll on it because streamlining things obviously results in confusion and rule bending,

      Delete
    15. The way I will play this until its FAQ'ed is everytime I hit a model / tank with my grav guns, I WOULD let the other player take any and all cover / Invul saves and each hit would ony take away 1 hull point. So 3 hits = 3 hull points loses. The spirit of the game and having fun is the most important part of 40k. If you don't like it don't use grav guns till the FAQ comes out.

      Delete
    16. gonna agree with black templar here. going for the spirit of the rules, even though they may be to your disadvantage is just the classy way to do it

      Delete
  2. I agree with you Natfka, major Easter egg hunt going on here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The issue is - Pg 75 Mini book.

    Dealing with Vehicles and cover saves.

    If the target is obscurred 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.

    The issue is the grav weapon never goes to the phase to see if it creates a glancing or penetrating hit. It just states, a 6 is rolled you are immbolized and lose a hull point. As it never hits the table it never activates the glancing or penentrating hit section of the cover save etc. Thus it basically removes cover as it never lets you have a chance to respond as the hit is neither a glancing or penetrating hit - even though it does do an effect from those tables etc.

    It does show that you would not take 3 Hullpoints if you are hit twice - as that table is never effected or never rolled thus the double immbolized result from that table would never activate.

    Of course from before we know that if they don't want you to have cover it says no cover - but by the odd writing of the rules it never lets you get to the phase of rolling for cover.

    It still takes 6 hits to have it happen so it isn't ruining the day most of the time - and if you are taking those centurions outfitted that way you are giving your opponents a lot of points in a single unit. Wave Serpents still wound on 2+'s and we all know causing dice rolls usually wins you the game in 40k.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is the table not used? See, this is where people lose me. Just because you don't roll a penetrating hit doesn't mean you don't use the immobilized result on the chart. The rule specifically says you suffer an immobilized result, but people who are against the idea want to shorten that to just immobilized.

      Delete
    2. Cover Saves - there are a number of instances where cover saves are allowed, but not specified in the rules or following the normal "flow" thru shooting attacks. ie Doom, Mawloc - just off my head.

      Delete
    3. Wouldn't Goatboy's line of argument disallow inv saves on vehicles as well? No pen/glan = no inv? Maybe the wording is different for invs for vehicles.

      The issue here is that the rules for cover were (I think) written before grav rules from the current sm dex and thus did not take non-penetrating hit causing an effect into account.

      It is hard to interpret it without an official FAQ.

      Delete
    4. Grzegorz Sz: Yes and no. Most of the 6th edition codices, and the BRB were underway around the same time.

      Delete
    5. I think Goatboy has it right. 2 hits = 2 Hull Points, not 3. I also will add that his interpretation of not allowing cover saves I also agree with. If we take a RAI view, he reason the Graviton Gun doesn't have the Ignores Cover rule is that it was designed specifically to deal with vehicles and heavily armored units. An infantry model can theoretically move in cover to put something between themselves the gravity well the gun creates. Vehicles such as tanks cannot while Fliers can still take their Jink save, spinning themselves out of the amplified gravity field. GW gave us a new tool that has conditional elements to it. I think that's what was intended, at least.

      Delete
    6. Cover saves? Maybe maybe not... but that 3 hullpoint loss on two 6 rolls is clear. It is not a matter of "effecting the table". The table is a list of damage effects. You still consult the description of effects, only instead of rolling for armour pen you just roll a 6 to get the immobilised result. It is in it's very essence altering the 1-6 result order, but not the effects.

      The problem with Goatboy's arguement and it's critical flaw is that the wording of immobilised effects on vehicles is only found on the damage chart. Here, word for word "An immobilised vehicle cannot move - it may not even pivot, but it's turret may continue to rotate to select targets, and other weapons retain their normal arcs of fire. Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle, or a Flyer with Locked Velocity (see page 81) instead remove an additional Hull Point."

      It doesn't say "If you roll on the damage chart and get immobilised result then the already immobilised vehicle looses an additional hullpoint." It says it very clearly.

      If you say you ignore that last sentence for a reason as thick headed as "just because" then we might as well ignore the whole description! Who can tell me I can't drive in straight lines after getting hit by a grav gun? I don't loose that additional hullpoint for being hit by that second 6 so I might as well make up my own description of what "immobilised result" does.


      Delete
    7. Capt....you need to read the rule on jink saves again.

      Delete
    8. What am I missing? A flier gets to evade via evasive maneuvers. After the roll to hit, you declare an Evade. Evade grants the Jink special rule. Jink states that a model that moved in the movement phase gains a 5+ cover save (more if the model moved Flat Out or Turbo Boosts). It's the order of events that set it apart from a tank. With a normal vehicle, would take a cover save from being obscured after "taking a glancing or penetrating hit" but the vehicle in this case took neither. In the Flier example, you can Evade (and thus gain an jink save) after being hit and prior to anything else.

      Delete
    9. You are looking at the evade rule right. They evade before the armor pen roll. They gain jink. Jink gives a cover save vs pen and glancing hits. This is where the problems is.

      Delete
    10. it says you get a save even from glance, pens, or any other type of damage.

      Delete
  4. I agree with your interpretation Natfka...however there will always be people who look to have literal interpretations. An example of this was Typhus and his plague zombies and whether or not extra cultists counted as "upgrades", they clearly didn't but some people obviously need things spelt out to them :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The way I see it, there is a specific rule for weapons that ignore cover. If it was intended for this weapon to ignore cover, it would be listed under the weapon attributes. If it was intended to ignore saves of ANY kind, it would be explicitly stated as do many other weapons in the game currently (i.e. blast masters, etc).

    You COULD argue it as it ignoring all kinds of saves, but I would not play it that way. It's just my opinion on the matter by context of the rules GW has put out in the past.

    However, as I have stated many times, when GW experiments with putting out a new kind of weapon that is unique to everything that currently exists in the game, they need to EXPLICITLY STATE any and all extreme cases. These extreme cases should be discovered through just a few games of play testing.

    Why on God's green earth they cannot do this successfully is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Becaus they drive on the missunderstanding of rules. The more drama, the more people Talk about how good this or that is and more people buy the product.
      They will just sell more grav-guns (boxes of SM) when people assume they are that much stronger.

      The point you make is 100% true. Clearer rules avoid all this and make for a complete rule System.

      Delete
    2. Wow, just when you think gw conspiracy theorists can't sound any crazier...

      Delete
    3. These are the same issues that we had in 2nd.
      Two more lines and there would be no confusion.
      As is...a FAQ could go either way.

      Rules are a means to sell minis.
      We all agree on that.

      Delete
    4. This rules ambiguity has relatively little effect on the actual quality of grav weapons though. Their main strength is vs heavy infantry and monstrous creatures, as by design. They tacked on a rule to make it capable of interacting with vehicles, and assumed their wording was clear.
      When you come up with something like this, you assume everyone will roughly understand it the way it is in your head. It's not the natural way ideas are communicated to assume you have to write as if thousands of people will be poring over your every adjective placement and what have you for any advantage you can find.
      Never ascribe to crazy marketing conspiracy that which can be explained perfectly well by the books not being written by lawyers.

      Delete
    5. It could be an oversite.
      But when it happens for 20+ years and you also have Codex creep, 6th buffing flyers and makeing aigeswalls a hot seller and then you also have cases of FAQ changeing Balance. For instance: after SM in 5th DA & BT were FAQed to have 4++ stormshield and Not the 3++ of vanilla. But then later, it was FAQed again to give DA & BT all the vanilla buffs without the increased cost.
      Or just look at demons as before the WD update and after and then after the dex!

      Its just to many cases of this Typ to be pure oversight (every Time). And like i said this is happening for ever and if they really wanted to avoid it, 2 more lines of rules would do it.

      Delete
    6. @seb12: Wow you are reaching to make a (really bad) point.

      Codex creep hasn't existed in 6th, because all of the books were underway at the same time. Nice try though.

      FAQ's don't sell models either, because most people have the models when the FAQ's hit.

      Reaching back into previous editions doesn't explain the current one (which has been planned, and executed differently than any before).

      Delete
    7. That wasnt my point.

      The point is if they leave room to faq rules either way... They can buff or nerf units midway.
      Thus selling more of One unit instead of a nother... or haveing people switch army composition.

      Better rules sell more minis!
      And its good to be able to buff midway.

      Grav-guns doing double hull dmg after First hit and ignoreing Cover are better = they sell better

      GW controlls demand with rules. Its not a conspiracy idea!

      Delete
  7. These arguments get to down to the razors edge of te rules, but in all homesty common sense prevails , you shot me, I'm behind stuff, your gun doesn't ignore cover, so I taking my cover save

    I wouldn't want to play with anyone who couldn't follow that simple train of thought

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same thing for Markerlights, I should get a cover save from those unless two tokens have been removed. That needs a serious FAQ as well.

      Delete
    2. @Jason - Except that the rules for markerlights now explicitly state that you dont.

      Delete
    3. Excellent points Edward and Moriar. I swear a lot of people don't actually play games, but instead spend their time on the internet complaining about it as if they do.

      I have never had an instance come up where my opponent and I don't know how to interpret a rule. Never. Even in a tournament setting. It's people looking for reasons to take one line out of a giant rulebook and claim it renders GW incompetent. Or they are trying to bend a rule to work the way they want it to.

      Delete
    4. If it doesn't say it ignores cover, it doesn't ignore cover. That's a rule GW explicitly attaches to shooting attacks when it applies. Stop pulling a, "but it doesn't say it doesn't ignore cover..."

      Delete
    5. I have to agree with these comments. It's a simple train of thought, which reaches a logical conclusion! I have rarely encountered situations where both players disagree on a rule, but when it happens, a third player can easily sort it out. Remember: it's a HOBBY! You play with little toy soldiers, FOR FUN!!

      Delete
    6. I think you miss the point with this exercise. Its not about logic and gameplay its how to exactly interpret the wording without involving gameplay at all.

      Im a friendly player too who would go for the logical gameplay interpretation that the second 6 removes an additional HP and not two. But then its not my thread :)

      Delete
    7. Since when is it not about logic?

      Delete
  8. To clarify regarding cover saves:
    The argument being made is that the rules for cover saves for vehicles specify they can take a save when they suffer a glancing or penetrating hit. Since grav weapons don't roll to pen...

    I'm not terribly convinced, but then I usually try to err on the side of rules consistency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the weapon affects you, you suffer the result of a penetrating or glancing hit, so I have a hard time understanding why something would not be afforded the cover save prior to receiving that result

      Delete
    2. We all understand the argument, we also understand anyone trying to make that argument is pathetic and has something to prove with their little plastic army men, willing to bend rules and sacrifice dignity to win. Anyone who try's that crap will be banished from my club never to be welcomed back. I also might just "accidentally" drop my heavy duty contractors tape measure on their centurions and say "oops, guess tape measures ignore cover."

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I'm on my phone at the moment, and when I started typing my comment, there weren't any comments up yet. I just wanted to clarify what the cover argument was over, since the main article didn't really explain it very well.

      Delete
    4. kwodd if you "accidentally" drop your heavy duty tape measuer on my models I would "accidentally" use your credit card to buy anouther box + one for the dick move you pulled

      Delete
    5. @The Kwodd What, because someone reads the unclear rules in the book different from you they're a terrible person who deserves to have their models smashed? I think I'd prefer not being in your club, thanks.

      Delete
    6. @pboyle: What he said was extreme, but these are not unclear rules. We just have a whole lot of not smart people.

      If a shooting weapon or weapon type doesn't specifically say "ignores cover", or, "cover saves can't be made against..." then it doesn't ignore cover.

      End of that argument until GW says otherwise. Play it as it's written until GW says otherwise. Trying to bend the rules in a way that it's not stated anywhere is the real dick move.

      Delete
    7. Wow, sounds to be a nice area to play. I'll cope with some paper count as models then. U'll have hard time trying to smash them...

      Anyway, i don't get thos centurion, but if someone shoot at my vehicle, i won't try to save those hit. The rules aren't logical, but i'm not here to debate if those rules are stupid or not. It's just the rules, no glancing&penetrating no saves. That's all, maybe it will be clarified, but during this time i wont try something like being in Cruddace head, and i don't want to be in his dirty mind anyway...

      Delete
    8. U are doing a dick move McDoogle then. But u seems to be so smart and comprehensiv there, haha.

      Delete
    9. McDoogle is right, I'm not really going to smash any models but I'd probably kick the player in the taint before they got out of my shop door.

      I find it funny that people are even trying to bend this into ignoring invuln saves, the insanity.

      Delete
  9. its really nice to just buy the books and paint now. Until GW puts an updatable digital copy of the rule book online and follows the Privateer press model, can't see myself playing this game again. OH, and rules as intended. Seems unlikely that they intended to do 3 hull points of damage with 2 hits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is that, they already intended to do 2 hull points of damage when you roll an immobilized result on an already immobilized vehicle, directly in the damage table.

      Why would it be different for grav weapons?

      Delete
    2. Yes, to be perfectly clear- It's entirely possible within the rules we already had for 2 lascannon shots to take off three hull points if they both pen and both roll immobilized. That's not even ambiguous.

      Delete
    3. 1. You're dumb.
      2. You're wrong about your interpretation.
      3. Privateer doesn't have the sheer weight of models and rules content to cover GW does. So go play your game with cartoony jacks on chicken legs, and "MASSIVE" 16 model battles.

      Delete
    4. Is that the best you got, Chicken legs and Cartoony, come on I expect more from from a self righteous GW worshiper. Didn't they teach you better at Trolling class, I mean GW manager training.

      Delete
  10. I pretty much agree with you. Multiple 6's don't give bonus HPs off a vehicle. It clearly states in the weapon's unique rule lose a *single* HP for each roll of a 6. I think the rule could be clarified by removing the word "result" from the description. Otherwise people will keep referring to the BRB which says further immobilized results knock off an extra HP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You lose a "single" hull point from the initial six, and then you lose an "additional" hull point from the redundant immobilized result, as per the rule on page 74.

      Live by semantics, die by semantics.

      Delete
    2. If you read the rule PROPERLY, You don't roll on the penetrating table. That Immobilized results is found where... in the Penetrating table that you didn't roll on!
      So 2hits = 2HP + Immobilize as per Grav-Weapon special rule!

      Delete
    3. Show me the rule that says you can't use the immobilized result on the vehicle damage chart unless you roll a penetrating hit first.

      Delete
    4. To start im gona say I'm really not sure if its 2HP or 3HP lost from 2 shots. But I think the referance to losing a "single" hull point is to clarify that you dont loose an additional hull point because its not a penetrating hit. The FAQ for the BRB states that if a vehicle suffers a result thats not caused by a penetrating hit you dont loose a HP for it and I thnik GW added the word single as they had faced this question before and didnt want to have to clarify it again they didn't want people claiming for the inital immoblisied result that 2 HP were removed as well as it would have been if the grav gun had rolled a penetrating hit. Unfortunately they completely missed this whole debate.

      Delete
    5. Show me the rules for immobilized vehicle? I only found it on p.74. I guess an immobilized vehicle should use THIS rules, no matter from where the vehicle get those result.

      Delete
    6. @Chris Kyle: Rules word for word: "When resolving a hit against a vehicle, roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling for armour penetration as normal. On a 1-5 nothing happens, but on a 6, the target suffers an Immobilized result and loses a single Hull Point."

      Now that we have the grav weapon rules, so the armour penetration rules is not apply on a hit by the grav weapon, since the rules tell you, NOT TO ROLL a armour pentration, and the vehicule damage table is where... under the armour penetration.

      Delete
    7. Also read pg.74 Resolving damage ... Penetrating hits: If a penetrating hits was scored, the vehicule not only loses 1 Hull Point, but also suffers additional damage, After deducting any Hull Point, roll a D6 ... and look up the result using the vehicule damage table on the left...

      So Immobilized is part of the vehicule damagae table, if you score a damage hier than the AV of the vehicule, but since you NEVER roll a AP, why will you use the vehicule damage table, where only a penetrating hit will use it!

      Delete
    8. Badruk, again: Show me the rule that says you can't use the immobilized result on the vehicle damage chart unless you roll a penetrating hit first.

      This idea that the immobilized result is not applied because you're not rolling on the chart is wishful thinking by people who are trying to reign in the weapon. There's no rule in the book that states that an immobilized result MUST be rolled in order to be applied.

      Or, alternatively, you can view it this way since you've decided to insert rules demanding a roll: Gravguns get their own chart against vehicles, which is 1-5: No Effect, 6: Lose 1 hull point and suffer an immobilized result. So look up an immobilized result in the BRB, which is on page 74 and says that every result past the first causes a loss of an additional hull point.

      It doesn't matter that you haven't made an armor penetration roll, you still suffer the effects of an immobilized result on a roll of 6. There's no rule in the book that negates that. None. Period. Full Stop.

      Delete
    9. Instead of rolling for armour penetration as normal roll for armor penetration like so. That roll is still for armor pen, just not normal.

      Delete
    10. That might be the best support for the cover save can be taken side I have see yet.

      Delete
  11. The new better plasma.

    They should have just buffed plasma instead.... But i guess this sells more of the new Kits.

    I assume this wont stay sm only... IG SW BA all up next...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except plasma works well against all infantry targets and is only really outperformed against very tough MCs(think Wraithknight/lord), is longer range without relying on a relentless platform, and has the capacity to damage vehicles on rolls other than a 6. Tradeoffs everywhere.

      Delete
    2. Plasma might Work better on low save models. But then killing 2 orks doesnt do much diffrence either way.
      Grav-gun lets you kill High AV vehicles if you roll well.

      Just superior

      Delete
    3. @seb12: Plasma kills low, to mid AV vehicles far better, however, and more reliably kills ALL types of infantry.

      Plasma is just superior.

      See how dumb you sound?

      Delete
    4. Str 7 is not that reliable in doing much to a vehicle. Stripping a Hullpoint doesnt do to much.
      Besides vehicles are Not that coman anymore in Most armys.

      As i said before killing low save models is just a waste of plasma and doesnt do much in terms of winning the game.
      But grave is much better at killing MCs and Termis due to 2/3.

      And being able to glance a LR to deth is also better than killing a rhino or pred.

      Delete
  12. Perhaps GW releases such shady rules on new weapons, to increase sales, then rectify the balance with an FAQ once the sales bump tapers off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a moron. Yes, they release unclear rules to...sell more of a bit...

      Instead of just making the gun CLEARLY awesome to DEFINITELY sell more of the bit.

      The rules aren't that hard to understand, except for the uneducated.

      Delete
    2. McDoogle, you just are fucking awesome. "Everyone who didn't think like me are dickhead" GODWIN SPOTTED.

      Stop ruding at everyone and go get some common sense. Then, try to debate WITH ARGUMENT.

      Delete
    3. Groeldor is right about one thing, McDoogle is just fucking awesome.

      Delete
  13. Obviously this is something GW has to clear up specifically, but here is my take on the weapon:

    Since it's causing an "immobilized result", as per the vehicle damage table, I would have no qualms in giving my opponent cover saves- no, you're not rolling on the table, but the weapon doesn't "ignore cover" and it is causing a result from the table. I never thought time about it until I saw this post in fact.

    Additionally, while I wouldn't have pressured my opponent into removing 3 hull points, and I doubt that's GWs intention, as the rules are written now I would have to agree that's how it should be played- if an immobilized vehicle suffers an additional immobilized result, unfortunately you do remove an additional hull point, very explicitly.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think people are just splitting hairs the hit does one thing and one thing only. It imobilizes and takes a HP a second hit does the same regardless . No bonus. And of course it gets a cover save. No where dose it mention grav weapons ignore cover.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because vehicles(as per Obscured Target rules on BRB pg 74-75) take cover saves specifically against glancing and penetrating hits, and grav weapons cause neither. It needs an FAQ because it is very unclear.

      Delete
    2. It's not unclear, it's just new.

      The logic isn't in what the Obscured Target rules state, but in what the Grav Weapon DOESN'T state. The weapon itself doesn't ignore cover, so cover saves can be made.

      Delete
  15. Cover saves-yes

    Additional hull point-no

    Come on guys

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your masterful argument and evidence free plea for common sense has swayed me.

      Delete
    2. I can see the logic behind the additional hull point, but the ignores cover is so far fetched I'm in awe of the fact that people are actually trying to push that bs.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. agreed. the ignores cover and additional hull point is being pushed by the worst kind of players. if anyone tried that on me I'd get up and walk away

      Delete
  16. via 40k FAQ

    Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned,
    Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage
    table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)
    A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
    hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
    lost.

    So, if the vehicles suffer 2 6's hits. The vehicle losses 2HP and is Immobolized.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This FAQ has nothing to do with the rule being discussed. The argument isn't whether or not the vehicle automatically loses a hull point when it suffers the immobilized result (it obviously doesn't), it's whether or not a redundant immobilized result would cause the loss of an additional hull point via the rule.

      Delete
    2. Actually this FAQ helps answer it in favor of no cover save. You suffer damage from the chart? Great, does that automatically make it a glance or pen? Nope. Can't rake cover from that then.

      Delete
    3. That faq actually clears that up. The wording is in the rule both in brb faq and c:sm codex! SINGLE HULLPOINT and immobilized. As much as I absolutely hate to agree, by raw you get no cover save because it never goes to the pen chart. It will need to be faqed.

      Delete
  17. What do people classify the d6 roll as if not a grav specific penetration roll? And how is a hit fired from a weapon that removes a hull point and immobilizes you not a penetrating hit? Love that I play nids and don't have to argue this ridiculousness. Ill just put my pinky toe on area terrain and roll my 5+.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Grav weapons say you don't roll to penetrate as normal, do this instead, and the result isn't 'a penetrating hit that causes the immobilized result', it's 'vehicle suffers the immobilized result and loses a hullpoint'. A penetrating hit has nothing to do in and of it's self with the damage you take other than suffering one causes the loss of a hull point automatically. GW could have used the first wording, saying something like 'a roll of 6 causes a penetrating hit that always inflicts the immobilized result' but they didn't.

      Delete
    2. Still rolling to penetrate. Because its not normal it's no longer a penetration roll?

      Delete
  18. I completely disagree. On dakkadakka I have a large write up explaining why so I won't go into as much detail. First off, "there is a specific rule that allows you to ignore cover and this weapon doesn't have it." This is an argument I see a lot. The problem with this is that grav-weaponry doesn't need it. Forget the vehicle damage table on this one. It has nothing to do with cover. Vehicles get cover saves against pens and glances. The grav-weaponry does neither of these things. There are plenty of weapons out there that specify that they glance and/or pen from the roll regardless of AV. They could have easily worded it "causes a pen but automatically is an imobilized result instead of rolling" or "glances and suffers and immobilized result." Either of these would result in an allowed cover save. I can see them FAQing in a cover save, but until they do this is how the rules read and anything else is misinterpretation. And trust me, I want there to be a cover save. I play elder, not SM.

    Now the 2 or 3 Hull Points is easy. The rule for grav-weaponry specifically states that it suffers an immobilized result. Where do we fins that? On the chart. The entry for immobilized says that its going to take another HP if it's already immobilized. The fact that it doesn't roll on the vehicle damage chart has absolutely nothing to do with the result. With two 6s, you rip off 3 hull points. This does not make centurions that strong statistically. It just makes them usable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but surely if you have to look on the chart for the immobilised result that means you get a cover save? "The problem with this is that grav-weaponry doesn't need it. Forget the vehicle damage table on this one. It has nothing to do with cover. Vehicles get cover saves against pens and glances." then " suffers an immobilized result. Where do we fins that? On the chart." you cant have it both ways either its on the chart...get a cover save..or its not then its 2 HP.

      Delete
    2. Nope. To gains cover save it requires a peneptraring or glancing hit. The vehicle damage chart does not automatically mean you suffered one of these. I'm on my phone so I cant quote it, but there is a FAQ that specifically says this.

      Delete
    3. So you use the chart when you need it for extra HP and ignore it when you want to ignore cover... LoL

      How consitent!

      We need FAQ.

      Delete
    4. Your assumption of what I said is flawed. You use the chart when it tells you to. When does rolling a cover save ever say anything about using the chart? It doesn't. The cover save has nothing to do with the chart and the chart has nothing to do with saves. To say otherwise is a fallacy.

      Delete
    5. The save comes from the roll to glance or pen. Not the roll on the chart. If it was then would we not roll our save once the results have been rolled?

      Delete
    6. Grav weapon rule says.... Sufer immobelised.
      It does Not says "...as per vehicle dmg chart"

      You just assume
      And by youre before established logic you dont get to assume it per chart

      Thus you use the rules as you See fit.

      Delete
    7. It says a immobilized result. There is only one area in the brb that covers what that is.

      Delete
    8. Yeah...
      The same area that has to be ignored for the "no Cover" Argument.

      Mabe make better justifications instead of assumeing stuff

      Delete
    9. If you claim you don't use the immobilization result on the chart, then I will move my vehicle as normal next turn.

      Delete
  19. well everyone space marines just caught the "CRUDD" its like the Clap but for codexes/army books, besides a better use for grav weapons is a bike squad with 2 grav guns and a combi grave and a MM attack bike going big game hunting on the savanas of 40k... criky! look at the size of that riptid, i'm gona go stick me gun up his bum! or for the more appalachian inclined hunter.. hey J.R go get yer grav gun I see me a wraithknight, lets kill it and put its head on the pick up truck.. okay joey

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't understand the confusion, brb FAQ clearly states that immobilised results do not cause a hull point unless stated otherwise. Am I just missing something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrote this in a previous comment, but it applies to your question:

      The FAQ you're referencing has nothing to do with the rule being discussed. The argument isn't whether or not the vehicle automatically loses a hull point when it suffers the immobilized result (it obviously doesn't), it's whether or not a redundant immobilized result would cause the loss of an additional hull point via the rule on page 74.

      Delete
    2. The "otherwise stated" is in the immobilized result text.

      Delete
  21. Great discussion on the cover saves. My group played with them last night. We personally allowed cover in our games, but my Lord are these weapons vicious. My tyranid big beasties just got crushed by them and my friend's chaos marines stood no chance. Brutal.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have to disagree. I think the rules are written really clear right now but people are not wanting them to be that way. If they wanted to let you have cover they would have said rolling a 6 when trying to pen the armor. Instead they have us rolling on a special chart that is marked as a non armor pen. I think they did this because they wanted troops to be able to take cover and tanks to not be able to.

    If they wanted to they could have written that the grav weapon removed a hull point and immobilised the tank vs saying it is a immobilised RESULT.

    I hope they come out with a FAQ showing it one way or another. If the person I am playing with has a strong argument that goes against how I see it I'll play their way. But it has to have some support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does say Immobilized Result.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. The larger the mass, the more pronounced the effect. It makes perfect sense to me that a nimble warrior could duck and get a cover save (because he was 'rolled to wound') but a vehicle cant.

      Like a marker light, you just need to see it, and since it doesnt roll to pen like normal, there is no glancing or penetrating hit to take the cover save against.

      Delete
  23. Cover saves or not could use a FAQ, but the whole extra hullpoint on 2nd immobilised needs no clarification whatsoever.

    You say the Grav weapons do not use the description or effects listed on the damage table?

    Oh so my grav weapon immobilised vehicle can only move in straight lines like a flyer? Or suddenly turn me into a wreck right away since a vehicle that can't move is abandoned by it's crew? Oh, I guess I can only pivot on the spot then?

    Gee sure would be nice if there was SOMETHING in that rulebook that told me what the effect of being "Immobilised" did to my vehicle... You know something worded really clearly and concisely like, "An immobilised vehicle cannot move - it may not even pivot, but it's turret may continue to rotate to select targets, and other weapons retain their normal arcs of fire. Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle, or a Flyer with Locked Velocity (see page 81) instead remove an additional Hull Point.". Oh. Yeah. Right.

    I will refer to the effects of immobilised results listed in the vehicle damage table on page 74 until someone can show me some other place in the BRB where the effects of immobilising a vehicle can be found. You want further proof you use it? Find me where it lists "Immobilised" in the Index of the BRB... It doesn't, only vehicle damage and vehicle damage chart; both on page 74!

    Jesus people, even the effects of failing dangerous terrain use the friggin' chart! Goatboy is just massive cheese and beard who shouldn't be played with.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Marginally related, my sisters scouting immos would at least still get their 6+ inv yes? I believe inv save states "unless specifically denies inv". Also it seems the immos and my wolves Rzrbs (or any low av) would still fare better vs gravs 1 in 6 than say plas or melta. Any math-hammerers out there?

    ReplyDelete
  25. So people say we CAN'T use the chart for determining if the vehicle gets a cover save, because it's not a glancing or penetrating hit.

    The same people say we MUST use the chart for determining what happens with an Immobilized result and loss of hull points.

    You can't use the chart for one and not the other to gain the advantages/best of both.

    Stick to the weapon's rules if it's that difficult. It immobilizes, and causes a loss of 1 HP. It doesn't say it ignores cover. No need to go to any charts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I'm generous with cover saves. I'm shooting at a vehicle in cover, if it's obscured from my point of view and my weapon doesn't have barrage USR and I'm causing damage; feel free to take a cover save.

      Markerlights don't give cover saves because there is no damage roll.

      It's a competitive game sometimes, but it's just that. If you can't be generous enough to give someone a cover save on what would wreck their vehicle on a double 6 then you're not someone I'd want to play.

      Delete
    2. People just say: no glancing and no penetrating = no roll for saving this. (just as a loss HP =/= wound, one can be save, the other can't)

      Immobilized is only on the p.74 chart. Where did you found this effect in other cases?

      Delete
    3. It's not that you can't use the chart for determining if vehicles get cover saves. The point is the vehicle damage chart has no relevance to cover saves at all.

      You can take a cover save if you suffer a Glancing or Penetrating hit. That's simple. The vehicle damage table is not referenced in any way in the course of determining whether or not you get a cover save.

      That is why you ignore the vehicle damage when working out if you get a cover save.

      On the other hand, when discussing what an "Immobilised Result" is, where do you suggest we should look in the rulebook?

      Since the vehicle damage table is the only place in the rulebook that describes what an "Immobilised Result" is, it would generally make sense to follow the instructions given there.

      That is why you would use the vehicle damage table when discussing an "Immobilised Result".

      I'm not going to get involved in the arguing back and forth about how to actually play it - I'll leave that until I play a game against someone using them, whenever that is - but I thought I would clarify why people are saying that you ignore the vehicle damage table for one thing and not the other. It's not that people are cherry picking rules, it just doesn't have any involvement in the process of determining whether or not you get a cover save, but does have relevance to applying an "Immobilised Result".

      Delete
  26. Based on this wording that people are arguing Invulns would not be allowed either... Interesting note tho that RAW grav weapons cant get rid of necrons quantum shielding

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It also appears more so like this was never a thought that occurred to the developer rather than one intended to allow a whole bunch of unprecedented interactions

      Delete
    2. @ Jason M
      My thoughts exactly.

      Delete
  27. Reading post this is starting to remind me of the 1999+1 point games so that they did not have to deal with the double force chart armies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guya... Just roll for it and have fun and some chicken nuggets and maybe some lemonade! :D :D :D

      Delete
    2. I am a strong believe about in the middle of the game with a rule argument roll a dice. I;ll pass on the chicken nuggets, breaded meats make me sick, but I will have some of that lemonade.

      Delete
    3. Its out there now. Its gone from arguing mid game to threats of GBH against units! Where does it go from here? I dunno but I'd be worried about Obama calling in airstrikes if it gets any worse! Chicken nugget airstrikes in your case!! DOOM!!

      Delete
  28. Heated argument?
    At this moment you are probably the only one claiming it doesn't remove 3 HP's when you roll two 6's.

    "On a 6 the vehicle is immobilized and loses a hull point."
    Do you even have the book? It says it SUFFERS an immobilized RESULT.
    If it said what you claim it says, you'd be right.
    But you are not.
    So to quote a famous blogger I know: "Failure."

    About cover-saves:
    You said it yourself, "you do not roll on the vehicle damage table."
    When do we take a cover save? When we have to roll on the vehicle damage table.
    I'm pretty sure this wasn't intended, but that's how it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We roll for the cover after rolling for armor pen not when on the table.

      I am agreeing with you just making sure you have all the parts of the argument.

      Delete
    2. Thank you :P I knew it was slightly before or after rolling on the chart.
      But in both cases it would mean that: No rolling on the char = no rolling for cover.

      In other news: I would never apply that rule unless people are using cheesy Eldar-lists against me.
      Immobilizing while disallowing cover is mean, but they deserve it :P

      Delete
  29. At least Natfka, ur good at reporting rumors. Maybe be you should focus on that.

    ReplyDelete
  30. People assume that because lawyers use the exact definition of a word, its a rule that applies to all aspects of the language. When in fact they have their own set of definitions(legal dictonary) specifically for that purpose.

    The English language is not RAW and the idea that it ever could be is daft. Poetry wouldn't work if it was.

    Both of these rules are obvious. Pretty much everyone who argues that its 3HP and ignores cover starts by saying but or apologising in their statement, so even they know it. The same goes for that bullshit area terrain cover save nonsense, patently obvious what the words written are intended to mean.

    In the soul blaze USR it calls the counters 'Soul Blaze counters' when you put them on, it then goes on to call them 'ablaze counters' when it talks about how many you can have on a unit? A much more blatant mistake but everyone accepts that. Funny how people only have trouble understanding the things that give them a huge advantage when misinterpreted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do people apologize and say 'but' for 3HP?
      That one is clear, you lose 3HP.
      It's so obvious and clear that the writer had to be blind to miss that, so it has to be intended.

      People do agree that ignoring cover against vehicles seems not intended, but that is what RAW says.

      Delete
    2. I am really trying to understand your point of view on this topic.

      So you are saying that English is a language of that is not RAW? So stuff like "I before E except after C" is not really just that? That we do not have books full of rules on how to write the langue and we all should use them as more like guide lines?

      Doesn't poetry have just as many rules about how it is suppose to flow and be set up?

      I think you are assuming stuff when you are comments about the people saying "sorry but the rule is done like this." Most of those people would rather have to cleared up and would take it ether way. I know if they give us a FAQ saying that you can or can not take cover or that the 2nd 6 is or is not a extra hull point removal I am not going to lose any sleep over it. Heck I hope they come out and say you get cover for it, make it easier when playing with new people and makes it faster when playing games you do not have to stop as much to show someone why it is acting like this.

      As for soul blaze. It is a counter not counters. I kinda stopped really reading the last of the post when it made it out to sound like you really thought a unit could be on fire more then one time by the use of that "S" and the "you put THEM on" vs "you put IT on.:

      Delete
    3. Man my spelling and typing is bad some times.

      Delete
    4. I before E haas been removed from the english teaching, mostly because its very often wrong. Like in one of the most common uses of I and E "Their".

      Delete
    5. " Pretty much everyone who argues that its 3HP and ignores cover starts by saying but or apologising in their statement, so even they know it."

      I don't. Why should I appologise for what the rule actually is worded as?
      The only time I say "I am sorry" when I explain it is when I know the other player will feel upset for being wrong.

      I can see how GW intended something different from what was written (like with the Zombie debate), but we can't use that as an excuse to make up our own rules.

      For now there is no Cover Saves, and 2 6s lose you 3HP, that is the truth, and I won't apologize for it :P

      Delete
  31. Certainly glad I'm playing nurgle daemons right now... for once lol

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm not certain I get the furore. So it's a bit unclear. I'm more of a fantasy than 40k player so I recognise that I may not be fully switched on, but when there's an unclear rule I have a chat with my mates about it. We're civilised adults, we should be able to agree something based on common sense. If we can't, we'll roll off. I also recognise that the guys I game with are in it for a few laughs and a good time, so we're not that competitive. Still, seems quite a stir going on.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Regarding the loss of 3 hull points, the wording is not ambiguous, this has always been the case, and no FAQ is needed.

    For example, if your rhino was immobilised in difficult terrain in your movement phase and in my shooting phase I fire a missile launcher at it and score a penetrating hit which results in an immobilised result then you lose 2 hull points. One for the penetrating hit and one because you have already suffered an immobilised result, the second of which causes an additional hull point loss as per the immobilised result. This has been widely accepted since 6th edition arrived.

    This despite the fact that the dangerous terrain test does not cause the player to roll on the vehicle damage chart.

    The removal of the cover saves as the grav weapons do not cause penetrating or glancing hits is however.

    On the one hand we have the assumption that invulnerable saves have been given to vehicles despite the fact that invulnerable saves reference wounds, which vehicles do not have.

    On the other hand we have the Markerlight FAQ from the previous Tau codex which stated that cover saves may not be taken against markerlights as they do not cause wounds, and armour, cover and invulnerable saves may only be taken against wounds, not against hits.

    To be honest I can see the cover save going either way, but would expect cover saves to apply, but a FAQ is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It's basically a G-R-A-V-I-T-Y gun. How do you take a cover save against gravity? It uses the object's mass against itself. It has the concussive rule, meaning whatever this thing wounds is basically stunned/immobilized. C'mon everyone. Look at the spirit of the rule, a gravity weapon. You know you can't fight gravity. Look at old people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But (and I havent read any of the fluff on it as of yet), how do you get the gravity effects on target to begin with? Since you need LOS to use the weapon, it must use some kind of linear transferal of energy, or otherwise need a clear line to the target. That is exactly what cover saves are there to represent, the disruption of your plastic dude's angle of fire.

      Now to throw my hat in this ring about cover saves themselves....
      I would tend to argue towards cover applying. I understand fully that RAW says otherwise, and I understand the Tau markerlight argument against allowing it. However, I would always give one to a player (unless they are necessitating that I be a rules-prick) because the effect has a direct effect on the target's future health(versus indirect with markerlights). Its that small distinction to me as a player that makes the difference between the two.

      If you cant understand how I can conceptualize the markerlight so it doesnt need a clear shot...well, thats another post for another time.

      Delete
  35. Its Pug - I really like this and agree with it. Well said

    For everyone else whos not here to completely competitively argue and fight over this rip and troll each others faces off and like to play for fun and fluff.

    Why not follow this. The game is for fun and even in the tournament scene I am still going to follow this:

    I am still going to give my opponent the cover save if he is actually in cover and it follows the rules for cover. Plain and simple. If I hit him. But he's in cover. then he gets his cover or invul save, etc.

    Why because it makes sense. And you are giving your player the benefit of the doubt and its all for fun and most likely grav guns are so flipping powerful that you'll get that tank sooner or later.

    Does anyone really give a shit if he gets the save or not.

    Its Pug explained it pretty basically that 2 hits of 6 would indeed take 3 hull points. but you know what. if my opponent really contested and said it needed 3 rolls to do it. then ok. whatever.

    we are grown men (most of us anyways) playing with toy soldiers trying to have fun. If i need to hit him 3 times to kill him so i don't spend the next 20 minutes arguing over a rule or having a rule books shoved in my face im not going to argue over it. might as well take the high road and be mature about it and just have fun.

    My two cents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree. Even if I think rules are clear (just non logic), and maybe are wrong. I won't destroy the fun on a game just for a f****** cover save. Since it's not clear, my opponent will be able to take a cover save.

      It's more about fairplay than logic.

      Delete
    2. My issue with this is that these grown men are not able to read their rules, and do as Natfka and make up rules as they see fit. "Roll on their own table" is a made up rule that Natfka makes up to make his argument.

      Had Grav said "You lose a hull point and suffer Screw Stunned" then no one would argue that you follow the rule on the damage table. But because it turned the weapon from "okay" to "Hey this isn't all that bad against vehicles" we have to invent rules to make it fit our preconceive notions.

      The same happened with the Zombie debate. RAW was plain and simple to understand, you could not have more guys, but people had to invent reasons where you could.

      In the end the rule got errataed (read changed) to reflect what people expected.

      But yeah my group agree on our stance on rules like this, but mostly we go by the plain old RAW, as we can never know RAI.

      Delete
  36. dramatic effect?

    power armor and vehicles get even more ded. big whoop.

    ReplyDelete
  37. My interpretation:
    1) Two hits two hull points. Graviton has its own rule regarding immobilized results and it is different than the rule for a penetrating hit.
    2) You get a cover save. If they wanted Graviton to ignore cover they would say so.
    3) I'm glad I don't play with most of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) And both get an Immobilized Result, page 74 tells you what an Immobilized Result does.
      2) I "agree".
      3) Same here, I wouldn't want to play against someone who denies me obvious stuff that is clearly intended.

      Delete
    2. @BigKitGuy:
      So how do you know what Immobilized is then? You have to look at the rulebook to know what this effect does to a model. And that rule is written in the damage table, this is the ONLY place.
      IT states a second immob result and you lose a Hull Point.

      I did get an immob result from my grav guns.

      Delete
    3. Like I said, it is my interpretation. I don't have different rulebook than anyone else.

      Delete
  38. My thoughts.
    1) A roll of 6 on a vehicle that was previously imobilized inflicts just 1 hull point. If they had intended for a second hit to destroy a vehicle, they would have said Rolls of 6 Auto Pen and Inflict a Immobilize result. Much like how they specifically say that Hawwire or Gauss have specific Glance/Pen results.
    2) No cover saves. There are enough things in this game that already work this way to set precedent. For example, Marker Lights, and any abilities that 'remove from play' and therefore bypass re-animation protocols, armor saves etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right from the FAQ:
      Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)

      A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
      lost.

      A) Does the Grav Weapon specifically inflict a glancing or Penetratign Hit? NO
      B) Does the Grav Weapon specify that it infliucts a hull point on the roll of a 6? YES

      So on a second roll of a 6, A applies, and then B applies.

      Case closed unless they reverse their minds on the FAQ (Which wouldnt be the first time)

      Delete
    2. Nothing to deal double immobilized vehicle.

      Delete
    3. Why is the 3Hp even in question The BRB is very clear "Any Immobilised result suffered by an already immobilised vehicle, or a flyer with locked velocity instead remove and additional hull point"

      Take drop pods.
      They land and are immobilised. (Thanks to the clarification in the FAQ they do not lose a hull point for this)

      I shoot with a rocket launcher and score a pen, roll a 5 and apply immobilised. The pen causes a HP loss and the immobilised result removes a second.

      If it was a grav gun shooting the pod then exactly the same happens on this time it loses a single HP from the grav gun rules and the immobilised result removes a second.

      likewise if you score 2 pens on a vehicle and they both come up 5s it's 3 HP gone.

      Delete
    4. Thors, explain to me why, in the scenario you described, you ignore the specific effect of losing an additional hull point when you get an additional immobilized result? In fact, right at the end it says this: "or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost." The "other effect that specifies would that a Hull Point is lost is right there in the Immobilized result rule, so you'll need something that specifically negates it.

      And please give me a specific rule that says you would ignore it, as the FAQ you're quoting doesn't do that, it simply states that you don't automatically lose a hull point (which, btw, no one is claiming you do) when you take one of those results, not that you would ignore the immobilized result rule.

      Delete
  39. I think one thing people are missing is that even though you do not roll on the vehicle damage table "immobilized" is a result from that table. Can anyone point to immobilized rules outside the vehicle damage table?

    Sure "immobilized" (i.e. cannot move) is an easy concept to grasp, but we use rules, not concepts, and the rule for immobilized is found only on the vehicle damage table which is not less a hard and fast rule because it is a result on a table.

    Unless there is a line in the rules saying immobilized results are not cumulative then your only set rule on what immobilized is and its effects are in those on the vehicle damage table which state if a vehicle is already immobilized (from past grav shot, past damage, a drop pod etc) then an additional hull point is taken.

    Remember for those who disagree you have to point to rules for 'immobilized' outside of the vehicle damage table, rather than a concept of not being able to move, to have a case- otherwise you are not going by the rules at all.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Where in the rulebook do you read about what immobilized does?

    There are no other places that p75 on the damage table. Which means you HAVE to follow the rules as they are written.

    There are no other immob rules in the book or codex, so you can't claim that you roll on your own magic table, when that table have no corresponding text, other than the text you claim I can't look at.

    All other rules that say you take an immob referre to the table, so there is s president for that being the case for Grav also.

    But if someone can show me any other passage where the immobilized rule is written, then please do so. Until then stop cheating.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey GW, here's the thing... I LOVE your models. I even REALLY like your game. My issue with you (and maybe it's all me) is that your rules stink. I don't mean a little bit. Your lack of clarifying rules interaction means that if you go from one area to another a rule may be interpreted completely differently. This leads to a lot of confusion and argument. I hate how games from you often break down into two sides arguing their POV and prooftexting. The fact that your BRB tells us to just "roll off and see who wins" leaves one person always feeling cheated. Come on!! You can do better. I know you can. Please remember there is a bunch WAAC players of your game that use any slight confusion as a way to rule-lawyer their way to victory. The are ruining the game for the rest of us. GW, please fix this. I want to love you, I really do. But there are so many other hot new systems out there that I am being tempted to start dating them.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Why don't you stop cheating yourself? There is no proof one way or the other due to bad writing/lack of insight. Until its FAQ its all just lips and assholes flapping in the wind

    ReplyDelete
  43. Please people- keep it civil.

    Although Thors Hammer there is clearly no contest- their are no alternative rules for immobilized, so unless it is changed by FAQ then you have to go with the rules as written. There is a reason the rule says "immobilized result" as on the table is the only rule for immobilized.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Also I think I see what GW was going for- grav weapons crush the target and are not meant to explode them (which would be expanding). So the multiple immobilized results are mean to wreck, not explode the vehicle- please note this is to put forward some design theory; the main point is in my post above

    ReplyDelete
  45. Vanguard, i apologize but i was not meaning to be uncivil, but for anyone to state that someone that doesnt agree with them is cheating is a bit too much.

    The FAQ states that you do not lose a hull point unless the result is due to a penetrating hit.

    There is no penetrating hit. There is only a rule that says it inflicts a single hull point and an imobilized result.

    This does need to be FAQ'd, though I am certain it will not be until after the cash grab is over.

    This will probably happen in the same FAQ batch that changes helldrakes back to a frontal arc.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TH, I agree throwing words like cheating does not help- it just starts bad lines of conversation.

      Could you please tell me where in the FAQ you are referring? I looked through the 40k rule book FAQ and only found this towards the top of page 7:

      “Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)

      A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost.”

      If this is what you are referring to then this is referring to hull points taken from hits, not cumulative effects from multiple immobilized results. Also although no penetrating hit is taken the grav weapon rules would be "some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost."

      I stand open to correction if you were referring to something else, but this was the only thing I could find in the FAQ that seems to be in the general area of the discussion.

      Delete
  47. To put an end to this: you lose two hull points and you always get a cover save. It's the hit you're dodging, not the damage table.

    Shot heads toward you, vehicle moves/dust gets in the way. In either case, you get a cover save. It's not something to duck around the argument by saying the table says so. No. Categorically, no. You get shot at, you get a save. It *does not matter* if it does damage or not.


    Only the truly desperate would argue against that.

    Arguably the rules are back to front: you should save *before* you roll to wound, but hey.

    I'm starting to worry that some people take 40K too seriously and twist and bend the rules as much as possible instead of playing to the spirit. It's not a substitute for your ego. It's a game. There are so many more important things than trying to rules lawyer for advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  48. My thought would be if you hit with the Grav Gun and roll a d6 needing a 6 to wound or take away a hull point. I don't think there is any possible way to get a cover save? Gun hits there is no save I imagine it as the Rhino was picked up and dropped what in the hell would cover do? If you hit where does cover save come from. Besides its a 1n6 chance of causing damage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you hit where does cover save come from"

      If there are models or debris in front of the target and the weapon in question doesn't have the "Ignores Cover" USR or explicitly state that it ignores cover, then IT DOESN'T IGNORE COVER. If you roll a successful hit, then someone rolls a successful cover save, you HIT the COVER. That's how cover saves work.

      Delete
  49. Also pointing out the argument in the article that you do not get an extra hull point as the grave gun has it's own table, I refer back to that only rule for immobilized is only found on the vehicle damage table. The grave table says a 6 also causes an immobilized result- but does not list an alternate version for immobilized on the grav weapon table- so if it does not have its own version, you use the general version.

    ReplyDelete
  50. IMO we need an FAQ, but till then it looks to me that 2 results would cause 3 HPs and I would think that cover could not be taken as it does not cause a Glance or Pen to save against.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Right, here goes:

    "...roll a D6 for each hit INSTEAD of rolling for armour penetration..."
    You will get a cover save, as your not ignoring the penetration roll, your performing something INSTEAD of.

    "...but on a 6, the target suffers an Immobilised result and loses a single hull point..."
    If the vehicle is already immobilised then, yes, the vehicle will instead lose an additional hull point. However if hit for the first time, then the vehicle will suffer ONE HP lose through the weapon and is immobilised. No where in the RAW does it state that an immobilised result not only causes the vehicle to stop, but it also causes a hull point lost. To cover this children...

    " AFTER DEDUCTING ANY HULL POINTS, ROLL A D6 FOR EACH SHOT THAT PENETRATED THE VEHICLES ARMOUR"

    It's clear as blue sky to me...

    ReplyDelete
  52. I skimmed through the last half of discussion, but hers how I see it, if I immobilize a vehicle it can't move. Then when I immobilize it again it takes additional damage. You all remember the old "an immobilized result on an already immobilized vehicle counts as a weapon destroyed results" from fourth edition right? My friends and I decided to use that logic when we play. So the first "damage" its immobilized and -1 hull point. The next "damage" is -2 hull points since the vehicle is already immobilized. Its more of a house ruling but it keeps things moving, and CIVIL.

    ReplyDelete
  53. as far as the cover issue is concerned. I think the strongest argument for allowing cover is the fact that obscured vehicles and vehicles with invuln saves specify glancing or penetrating hits. Rules that grant a cover not based on being obscured (jink, stealth, shrouded, etc) would not be affected by grav guns.
    Given that, I can't see the logic behind only some cover saves and not others.

    ReplyDelete
  54. This is such an interesting blog. You are very knowledgeable about this subject. Please check out my site.
    Toy guns for kids

    ReplyDelete
  55. All weapons of one type are fired at the same time every 6 is 1 hull point and immobilized, second set of grav do 2 HP per 6 because it is already immobilized. That's what immobilized says. The weapon does not have ignores cover so you get a cover save if you are hiding in cover.

    ReplyDelete