Grav weapons and vehicles

[Stone Edwards]

Hey everyone. Been seeing a lot of people saying that vehicles don't get cover saves vs grav weapons since it technically doesn't cause a pen/glance result. Just wondering if everyone is in consensus with this or if there is some dissension to this. Also does this mean they wouldn't get invul saves either?

[Nabterayl]

I'm of the opinion that they don't get cover or invulnerable saves, for the reason you describe. If we get a FAQ to the contrary I won't be super surprised, but until and unless that happens I think it's pretty clear that grav weapons don't penetrate armor, and thus vehicles can take neither cover nor invulnerable saves against them.

[Houghten]

If you have to use the word "technically"...

[Tyrendian]

well, RAW says you don't, while common sense suggests you do (infantry get cover after all...)

[tbcx6628]

Though if this is true they wouldn't get re rerolls from tank hunter if there Imperial Fists, I am ok with that lol.

[AirHorse]

Except Dev Centurions already get rerolls for having grav amps anyway!

[Houghten]

Yes, the existence of the grav-amp should be a clue.

If this is not a penetration result, then why do they get re-rolls to penetrate?

[Nabterayl]

If this is not a penetration result, then why do they get re-rolls to penetrate?
I can't tell if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you, but:

Grav-amps say "When rolling to Wound with a grav-weapon, or to determine its effects on a vehicle, the bearer can re-roll the result."

The fact that it says "its effects on a vehicle" rather than something like "failed penetration rolls" is further evidence to me that grav weapons don't cause penetrating or glancing hits at all.

[DarkLink]

Then tell them they don't get to reroll penetration from grav amps.

[Stone Edwards]

It is explicitly a to penetrate roll. Someone is being a dumbass.

Have to disagree with you here. To me it sounds like it is explicitly NOT a to penetrate roll.

Another thing I saw on warseer: since it causes an immobilized result if you roll 2 6s does that cause 3 hps? Two for each 6 and then another for an additional immobilized result.

Edit: forgot to mention my reasoning for lack of saves. It's an effect in the same vein as a failed dangerous terrain test and cover saves can't be taken against those.

[Tushan]

Hey everyone. Been seeing a lot of people saying that vehicles don't get cover saves vs grav weapons since it technically doesn't cause a pen/glance result. Just wondering if everyone is in consensus with this or if there is some dissension to this. Also does this mean they wouldn't get invul saves either?

The cover rules specify glancing and penetrating hits, so you wouldn't get cover (difficult to hide from gravity maybe?) still if you want an answer have you submitted it to GW? Surprising how many of these questions are not submitted and they are called 'frequently' asked questions for a reason :)

[DarkLink]

Already edited my post. However, you absolutely do not get bonus hullpoints for multiple immobilizations. That only occurs when you roll on the vehicle damage table, which grav guns never do even if they are to-penetrate rolls.

[MajorWesJanson]

Already edited my post. However, you absolutely do not get bonus hullpoints for multiple immobilizations. That only occurs when you roll on the vehicle damage table, which grav guns never do even if they are to-penetrate rolls.

Grav gun "suffers an immobilized result and loses a single hull point"
Immobilized result "Any immobilized results suffered by an already immobilized vehicle, or a flier with locked velocity instead remove an additional hull point"

Seems pretty clear to me. Nothing in there about having to roll on the table for it to apply.

[Nabterayl]

I concur. Just go to that result on the table and do what it says. Two 6's on a graviton roll against a single vehicle = 3 hull points gone.

[Badlands]

I guess this means that the USR Ignores Cover doesn't work against vehicals then. It also doesn't say anything about glancing or pinning, only wounds.

My bet is both of these get a FAQ and you do get your cover and invol saves.

[DarkLink]

I concur. Just go to that result on the table and do what it says. Two 6's on a graviton roll against a single vehicle = 3 hull points gone.

Yeah, if it says immobilized result, then that means extra hull points.

[Asuryan]

Have to disagree with you here. To me it sounds like it is explicitly NOT a to penetrate roll.

Another thing I saw on warseer: since it causes an immobilized result if you roll 2 6s does that cause 3 hps? Two for each 6 and then another for an additional immobilized result.

Edit: forgot to mention my reasoning for lack of saves. It's an effect in the same vein as a failed dangerous terrain test and cover saves can't be taken against those.

I would say yes that if you immobilized and already immobilized vehicle you would lose one hull point but as you said your self its not a penetrating roll so no loss of hull points for the first one and only losses hull points on subsequent immobilizations so 3 hp = 4 results

[Stone Edwards]

I would say yes that if you immobilized and already immobilized vehicle you would lose one hull point but as you said your self its not a penetrating roll so no loss of hull points for the first one and only losses hull points on subsequent immobilizations so 3 hp = 4 results

No extra HP lost on the first one, the grav gun still causes a wound on a 6.


Yeah, if it says immobilized result, then that means extra hull points.

Well then you agree with us as the rule specifically says it suffers an immobilized result and loses a hull point.

[confoo22]

However, you absolutely do not get bonus hullpoints for multiple immobilizations. That only occurs when you roll on the vehicle damage table, which grav guns never do even if they are to-penetrate rolls.

Ok, this statement has got to be the most oft-repeated and least explained argument in this entire debate, so please consider this a plea to anyone who can explain why you only lose a hull point for additional immobilized results if you actually roll on the chart. I've scoured the BRB and FAQ for a rule that says you must have been hit with a penetrating shot for a second immobilized result to deal a hull point of damage. I've found nothing, yet people keep trotting this statement out like it's some sort of documented rule.

Oh, and please don't explain how the penetrating armor roll mechanic works because there's nothing in that rule that excludes the possibility of losing an additional hull point by suffering an immobilized result even if you haven't actually rolled on the chart or suffered a penetrating hit. Also, the FAQ people like to quote concerning the automatic loss of a hull point for certain effects also has no bearing in the argument as the loss of the hull point isn't the result of simply suffering an immobilized result. It's the result of suffering a redundant result, which is "some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost," as per the FAQ.

[Nabterayl]

That's fair, but ... you're aware DarkLink has recanted that statement, right?

[confoo22]

That's fair, but ... you're aware DarkLink has recanted that statement, right?

I'm not going after Darklink, I'm honestly just looking for someone to explain this logic to me since I've seen repeated so many times.

[shabbadoo]

Dangit. Well, an FAQ will be needed to those who want to purposely be obtuse, but also for those who are simply newer to the game and might not be quite sure that to do. I would say that any damage result from a shooting attack against an obscured vehicle allows for cover save unless the shot has the Ignores Cover special rule, or some rule to that effect. That one doesn't need to roll to see if a hit is glancing or penetrating, as it just has an effect, does not rule out cover saves unless it says so (like is the case with Apocalypse Strength D weapons).

[hisdudeness]

Here is the problem, the "ignore cover" rule is there to allow a hit that would normal allow a cover save to not allow a cover save. The hit has to be save-able in the first place. The triggers for vehicle to take a save DO NOT HAPPEN with grav hits, so "ignore cover" is not needed. The wording for saves and vehicles is very specific as to what triggers a save. I'm not sure why this is a hard concept to understand.

As for the additional HP. Those saying yes have my vote.

[Tynskel]

Here is the problem, the "ignore cover" rule is there to allow a hit that would normal allow a cover save to not allow a cover save. The hit has to be save-able in the first place. The triggers for vehicle to take a save DO NOT HAPPEN with grav hits, so "ignore cover" is not needed. The wording for saves and vehicles is very specific as to what triggers a save. I'm not sure why this is a hard concept to understand.

As for the additional HP. Those saying yes have my vote.

Dude. All of the conditionals are satisfied for a cover save. There is a shot. you check line of sight, there is damage dealt, and you can can check for cover.

Cover, by convention is *automatically* granted unless it is *explicitly* ignored.

There are no circumstances where cover is ignored implicitly.

Additionally, you get a cover save, from the exact same weapon, if you have wounds. Yet, you are implying, even though the weapon does not state explicitly, that because the model has armor, it does not receive a save. That is an inconsistent application of the rules.

[GravesDisease]

The argument against the loss of the additional hp from two immobilises goes a bit like this:
Something can have a status immobilised, that it can't move for rest of the game, which can be got a variety of ways. Failing a terrain test for example. Then there is the case of rolling 5 on the vehicle damage table which is called "Immobilised" that includes the oft quoted rules with an additional hp.

Grav guns just immobilise vehicles but not mention vehicle suffering a penetrating hit, immobilise result. There are ways to get a "crew shaken result" other than a penetrating hit but to me result is the salient word. I'd love to be proven wrong on this one as I am planning on running three grav centurions.

[Nabterayl]

Wait, "Immobilised result" doesn't mean "look at the immobilised result on the vehicle damage table" to you?

[GravesDisease]

Wait, "Immobilised result" doesn't mean "look at the immobilised result on the vehicle damage table" to you?

What on earth makes you say that?

[hisdudeness]

Dude. All of the conditionals are satisfied for a cover save. There is a shot. you check line of sight, there is damage dealt, and you can can check for cover.

Cover, by convention is *automatically* granted unless it is *explicitly* ignored.

There are no circumstances where cover is ignored implicitly.

Additionally, you get a cover save, from the exact same weapon, if you have wounds. Yet, you are implying, even though the weapon does not state explicitly, that because the model has armor, it does not receive a save. That is an inconsistent application of the rules.

Except for the part on p75 that says, "If the target is obscured and suffers A GLANCING OR PENETRATING HIT, it must take a cover save...". A Grav hit never causes either, thus a model does NOT meet the conditionals for a cover save. Inconsistency does matter, just because one model type gets something does mean all models gets it. If fact, we have model type specific for that reason...so the rules can affect them in different ways.

[Tynskel]

Except for the part on p75 that says, "If the target is obscured and suffers A GLANCING OR PENETRATING HIT, it must take a cover save...". A Grav hit never causes either, thus a model does NOT meet the conditionals for a cover save. Inconsistency does matter, just because one model type gets something does mean all models gets it. If fact, we have model type specific for that reason...so the rules can affect them in different ways.

Again, this argument is just wrong. If you look at every single instance of using a gun, you get a cover save, unless the weapons *explicitly* denies the save. The grav gun is no different than any other gun. The interpretation of the rules that you are proposing is inconsistent: wound models get a save, but armor models do not? That makes no sense, and does not follow the construction of the ruleset.

[hisdudeness]

The argument is not wrong, it is fully back by RAW. You can argue all day long, but the rules for obscured vehicles do not support your view. We are *explicetly* told when a vehicle can take a cover save and "immobilized result and hull point" is not one of those. "Ignores cover" is only needed when a cover save is normally allowed, which in this case it is not.

You're also wrong in that the grav gun is no different then any other gun. I would say that circumventing the normal vehicle damage rules in not normal.

As stated, this is not an interpretation but the rules as they are written on the page. As far as consistency...it really doesn't matter. Tons of weapons do something to one type of model and something different to another. Consistency also don't matter too much when that is what the rules tell us.

[Tynskel]

The argument is not wrong, it is fully back by RAW. You can argue all day long, but the rules for obscured vehicles do not support your view. We are *explicetly* told when a vehicle can take a cover save and "immobilized result and hull point" is not one of those. "Ignores cover" is only needed when a cover save is normally allowed, which in this case it is not.

You're also wrong in that the grav gun is no different then any other gun. I would say that circumventing the normal vehicle damage rules in not normal.

As stated, this is not an interpretation but the rules as they are written on the page. As far as consistency...it really doesn't matter. Tons of weapons do something to one type of model and something different to another. Consistency also don't matter too much when that is what the rules tell us.

Just because the 'damage' is *slightly* different, doesn't mean cover is ignored. Look at Doom of Malanti, look at a whole slew of other weapons out there. All of them bypass the rules in some fashion. All of them have been FAQed to *not* ignore cover.

You *must* have explicitly stated that you ignore cover.

[hisdudeness]

Does it?

So grav weapons make a glance or pen hit?

[Tynskel]

irrelevant.
Damage was dealt.

There was intervening cover.

The construction of the rules + FAQs, is 100% clear: cover saves are *always* taken from firepower unless the weapon *explicitly* denies cover.

[hisdudeness]

Which is a direct contradiction to the rules as written. Just because a vehicle is obscured doesn't mean it gets a cover save.

[Tynskel]

No. You misunderstand what RAW means.

RAW means using *all* of the rules together. You argument would have weight if you could cite *any* example.

[hisdudeness]

First, an example is not needed when the rules clearly tell us obscured vehicles get a cover save against Glancing and Penetrating hits only. A Grav shot does not produce either. There is no gray area to this fact and I'm not sure what other rules are need for vehicle cover saves...

Second, it's kinda hard to find a previous example for a new mechanic.

[Tynskel]

First, an example is not needed when the rules clearly tell us obscured vehicles get a cover save against Glancing and Penetrating hits only. A Grav shot does not produce either. There is no gray area to this fact and I'm not sure what other rules are need for vehicle cover saves...

Second, it's kinda hard to find a previous example for a new mechanic.

No, this is not hard to find previous examples–all the previous examples have been corrected to grant Cover Saves. Hence, why denying cover saves makes no sense.

[hisdudeness]

Maybe because Grav hits don't Glance or Pen? You know, the only two things that trigger a cover save as per the rule quoted from page 75 of the BRB...until you disprove this fact you don't have a leg to stand on.

[daboarder]

you guys do realise that arguing that vehicles don't get cover from grav guns is like arguing that ignores cover weapons don't ignore cover when shooting at vehicles right?

[Tynskel]

you guys do realise that arguing that vehicles don't get cover from grav guns is like arguing that ignores cover weapons don't ignore cover when shooting at vehicles right?

What are you talking about?

Reading through the rules, it states that Grav-Weapons "instead of rolling to armour penetration as normal...". There's nothing in that rule that states 'ignores cover'. You are just replacing the function with a different function. You follow all the same steps.

[Tynskel]

Maybe because Grav hits don't Glance or Pen? You know, the only two things that trigger a cover save as per the rule quoted from page 75 of the BRB...until you disprove this fact you don't have a leg to stand on.

You still do not have a single example to support your argument. Again, that's because every single time this has happened, it has been FAQed to gain a cover save.

[hisdudeness]

What do you mean "every single time"? This is a new game mechanic. One would also thing that if this has happened so many times before that they would get the hint and write the rule in a way to not need a FAQ.

I don't need an example...no, you know what? You show us all of these "every single time" you keep talking about. Or how about a rule to back up your assertions?

[Tynskel]

What do you mean "every single time"? This is a new game mechanic. One would also thing that if this has happened so many times before that they would get the hint and write the rule in a way to not need a FAQ.

I don't need an example...no, you know what? You show us all of these "every single time" you keep talking about. Or how about a rule to back up your assertions?

'Every single time' a 'new game mechanic' comes in, it is FAQed to allow cover saves.

Look up the FAQs. Unless the mechanic *explicitly* denies cover saves, you *always* get a cover save from shooting if you are obscured.

I have already mentioned some earlier. Read the thread.

[TimmyPowerGamer]

RAW Hisdudeness is right - the shots don't result in a Pen. or Glancing hit so you don't get a cover save but only because of a new mechanic and will be faq'd to allow them.

As has already been said: it's a shooting attack and unless specifically stated, you get cover saves against shooting attacks if you are obscured enough, and personally I would allow them.

[hisdudeness]

@tynskel: strange, I have read the thread multiple times and see no post (yours or anyone elses) that gives a specific example of all of these instances. I have also read the FAQS and also do not see these examples you speak of. Could you please cite codex FAQ and page for reference?

@TPG: where is this rule of always getting a cover save if obscured? Can you cite a pg and paragraph?

I guess "it is obviously going to be FAQ'd" is a valid reason to not play the rules.

[Turner]

Objection, please refer to the special rule Ignores Cover and note that (page 38) "Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special Rule."

It has yet to be FAQ'ed to work against vehicles. (Where as Rending has been FAQ'ed to not work against vehicles.) "Q: If an attack with the Rending special rule rolls a 6 for their Armour Penetration roll against a vehicle and subsequently scores a Penetrating Hit, does that hit count as being AP2 as it would if the attack rolled a 6 To Wound? (p41)
A: No."

Also please reference the special rule Vector Strike (page 43) "When Swooping, this model may savage its prey. At the end of the Movement phase, nominate any one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved over that turn. This unit may even be an enemy Flyer. That unit takes D3+1 hits, resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP 3. Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour." Now double checking the current FAQ's we had one sentence added to the end of that paragraph, "No cover saves are
allowed against these hits." Please note the difference in wording, it does not explicitly state that it has the Ignores Cover special rule but simply states No cover saves are allowed against these hits; Unlike the entire building damage table and building rules which all state, "if a glancing hit is scored, one model inside the building suffers a Wound with the Ignores Cover special rule." (page 93) "Partial Collapse the occupying unit suffers D6 Strength 6 AP - hits with the Ignores Cover special rule." (page 94) "Structural Collapse The occupying unit suffers 2D6 Strength 6, AP - hits with the Ignores Cover special rule..." (page 94) "Total Collapse: The occupying units suffers 2D6 Strength 6 Ap - hits with the Ignores Cover special rule..." (page 94) "Detonation! The occupying units suffers 4D6 Strength 6, AP - hits with the Ignores Cover special rule..."

[daboarder]

What are you talking about?

Reading through the rules, it states that Grav-Weapons "instead of rolling to armour penetration as normal...". There's nothing in that rule that states 'ignores cover'. You are just replacing the function with a different function. You follow all the same steps.

Tynskel I am saying that trying to say grav weapons don't allow cover saves, Is as dumb as the old argument that the ignores cover special rule doesn't work on vehicles because it states "wounds".

[TimmyPowerGamer]

@tynskel: strange, I have read the thread multiple times and see no post (yours or anyone elses) that gives a specific example of all of these instances. I have also read the FAQS and also do not see these examples you speak of. Could you please cite codex FAQ and page for reference?

@TPG: where is this rule of always getting a cover save if obscured? Can you cite a pg and paragraph?

I guess "it is obviously going to be FAQ'd" is a valid reason to not play the rules.

Pg 74 VEHICLES AND COVER-OBSCURED TARGETS and most of Pg 75 goes on to show that if a vehicle is at least 25% obscured it gets a cover save against shooting (no mention of glancing and penetrating hits - although I know it is mentioned elsewhere.)

' "it is obviously going to be FAQ'd" is a valid reason to not play the rules ' - not really. We just use a modicum of common sense. The source is a shooting attack which does not state anywhere that it ignores cover.

[Chris*ta]

Objection, please refer to the special rule Ignores Cover and note that (page 38) "Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special Rule."

Anyone else remember the thread where someone seriously tried to argue this? It was hilarious.

As for vector strike, the no cover saves bit is effectively reminder text. They thought the average player of WH40K was not dumb enough to try and argue that these attacks (that are obviously the flyer attacking hand-to-hand) would be subject to cover saves.

As for the core argument of this thread, this is so obviously going to be FAQ'd it's not even funny. GW writes rules for sensible people who want to play a fun game, not jerks who wish to dogmatically apply the rules literally in an attempt to get every tiny advantage they can. The rules are far easier to understand when you're aware of this.

[hisdudeness]

Again with the "obviously" statement. Show us where this happens "every single time" because it is "obviously a mistake" but I can't find a single case.

[Tynskel]

Again with the "obviously" statement. Show us where this happens "every single time" because it is "obviously a mistake" but I can't find a single case.

The FAQs are pretty clear. The Critter is physically beating something, *not* shooting.

[Chris*ta]

Again with the "obviously" statement. Show us where this happens "every single time" because it is "obviously a mistake" but I can't find a single case.

As you evidently failed at reading comprehension in regards to finding Tynskel's earlier post, I'll help you...

Jaws of the World Wolf.

[Chris*ta]

Oh, and what I think is very important when reading GW's rules:

GW does not include easter eggs in its rules! If something is not explicitly stated, but a literal interpretation of the rules would give you that result, that's not how it's meant to be played. Even if you want to play RAW, it's going to get FAQ'd sooner or later ...

[Turner]

As for vector strike, the no cover saves bit is effectively reminder text.


If it were a reminder text wouldn't it be done the same as buildings (also template weapons) with it simply stating, "has the Ignores Cover special rule and not specifically stating it?

[Chris*ta]

I think no because a) it's effectively a melee attack (You may as well argue that you're guy attempting death or glory should get a cover save!) and b) GW is not known for writing absolutely consistent rules.

[Nabterayl]

I have already mentioned some earlier. Read the thread.
No, you haven't. Not in this thread, anyway. Maybe in the other one? But not in this thread.

@hisdudeness:

Page 75 does not say that you can only take a cover save against a glancing or penetrating hit. What it says is that "If [a vehicle] ... suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it." That is not the same thing as saying that a vehicle can only take a cover save against a glancing or penetrating hit. If A then B does not mean if not A then not B.

Now, you're right that we wouldn't allow a cover save to be taken simply because nothing says you can't. However, consider the parallel case of the invulnerable save. Like page 75, page 17 allows invulnerable saves to be taken against glancing or penetrating hits: "“Invulnerable saves ... may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit." Like cover saves, this doesn't prohibit taking an invulnerable save against something other than a glancing or penetrating hit, but it doesn't seem to explicitly allow it either.

Curiously, though, GW seems to think that that we should read the rules as written such that invulnerable saves can be taken against Dangerous Terrain tests, which are certainly neither glancing nor penetrating hits. Recall the dark eldar FAQ, which says:


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

That isn't an amendment, either - it's a FAQ, which tells us that GW thinks that the rules as written already work that way, without the need to modify the wording. The precise way in which this works is obscure - they don't tell us which wording, in their view, permits an invulnerable save to be taken against an Immobilized result - but it's a clear example that there is at least one case in which GW agrees that page 17 doesn't limit invulnerable saves to being taken against glancing and penetrating hits.

I think that's a very good reason to believe that an invulnerable save could be taken against a Graviton hit - and if an invulnerable save can be taken, I see no reason why a cover save couldn't be taken either. The wording for vehicle invulnerable saves and vehicle cover saves is essentially the same, after all.

[hisdudeness]

You do realize the problems with the Jaws example right? First, Jaws does not affect models with an armor value so I'm not sure how this helps your view...thus the reason I ignored it . Second, it proves the point that if an effect doesn't meet the requirements for a cover save, you don't get it. GW ruled the same way for Jaws hits as I am claiming for grav hits. Grav hits don't meet the requirements for a cover save just like Jaws didn't.

Also, I fail to see how a single example constitutes "every single time" and proves anything.

This is not a literal interpretation. This is going straight by the book, step by step. This is not an "easter egg" or a stretch of the rules. This a pure and simple a trigger not happening.

@nabterayl: that is how you do it! That is a relevant example and FAQ. The problem I can see that the FAQ is based on 5th ed rules. Has there been a change in wording for vehicle cover saves between editions?

What is the wording for Flickerfield?

[Chris*ta]

This is 100% an Easter Egg. If GW didn't want vehicles to get cover saves against grav weapons, they would have said so in the rules for grav weapons. They would not require a close reading of the rules on grav weapons, cover saves and vehicle damage.

I'm also yet to see anyone manage to make an argument based around the fluff as to why a grav gun should allow cover saves for infantry and monstrous creatures, but not to vehicles. Anyone got any ideas? And no, don't tell me the fluff doesn't matter.

[Turner]

I'm also yet to see anyone manage to make an argument based around the fluff as to why a grav gun should allow cover saves for infantry and monstrous creatures, but not to vehicles.



Magnets

Infantry, MCs and the like get a cover save because they are organic (mostly) and thus are allowed a cover save. Vehicles on the other hand are mostly (if not entirely) metal. Also Necrons are made of metal that is non-magnetic, but their vehicles are.

[Nabterayl]

@nabterayl: that is how you do it! That is a relevant example and FAQ. The problem I can see that the FAQ is based on 5th ed rules. Has there been a change in wording for vehicle cover saves between editions?

What is the wording for Flickerfield?
Flickerfield says, "The vehicle has a highly advanced optical force shield that makes it appear to flicker in and out of reality. A vehicle with a flickerfield has a 5+ invulnerable save."

So, from a rules perspective, just a plain 5+ invulnerable save.

As for the edition ... I don't have my 5th edition rules with me, so I can't say exactly how they were different, but obviously they were somewhat different since in 5th edition failed Dangerous Terrain tests didn't deduct hull points. I don't see how that's relevant, though. It's in the most current edition (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3180052a_Dark_Eldar_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf) of the dark eldar FAQ. It is, therefore, a 6th edition ruling.


Magnets

Infantry, MCs and the like get a cover save because they are organic (mostly) and thus are allowed a cover save. Vehicles on the other hand are mostly (if not entirely) metal. Also Necrons are made of metal that is non-magnetic, but their vehicles are.
Or simple mass. Grav weapons lore states that they're more effective the more massive the target is, so that could be reflected by vehicles not getting a cover save. There is usually a way to make the lore back either rules result, and I think this is one such case. But I still think the best reading of the rules as written is that vehicles definitely get an invulnerable save against grav weapons, and probably get a cover save.

[hisdudeness]

So following the steps of the rules for resolving vehicle hits is an easter egg? Sweet!

As far as fluff (which has no baring on the rules) it's basic physics. The greater the mass the greater the effect of gravity. Even if some of the 'magic field' that is shot at the target is stopped by the intervening cover it is offset by the increased mass of a vehicle. Try googling Newton's law of universal gravitation.

I'm not so sure, Nabterayl. I am more of a permissive guy, and I'm not seeing the permission I believe is needed. I wouldn't even say that a vehicle gets an invulnerable save, for the same reason. Is there another instance besides the flickerfield that would be an exception to the "no pen/glance = no save" idea?

[Chris*ta]

Magnets

Infantry, MCs and the like get a cover save because they are organic (mostly) and thus are allowed a cover save. Vehicles on the other hand are mostly (if not entirely) metal. Also Necrons are made of metal that is non-magnetic, but their vehicles are.

Pity is a) It's a grav gun not a magnet gun and b) Eldar vehicles are wraithbone and not magnetic, and the dreadknight is a big ol' lump of metal.


As far as fluff (which has no baring on the rules) it's basic physics. The greater the mass the greater the effect of gravity. Even if some of the 'magic field' that is shot at the target is stopped by the intervening cover it is offset by the increased mass of a vehicle.

Except for gargantuan monstrous creatures, which do get a cover save, but the goliath tracked bomb doesn't get a cover save.


So following the steps of the rules for resolving vehicle hits is an easter egg? Sweet!

No, it's an easter egg because you're letting grav weapons have ignore cover saves even though it never says they have it in the grav weapon rules.

And the relevance of fluff to the rules is that the writers write the rules to reflect the fluff, not for the sake of literal-minded rules lawyers.

[Nabterayl]

We might also observe that when Tynskel contends that cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against any shooting attack, he isn't making a facially ridiculous argument. We've already observed that pages 17 and 75 do not say that cover and invulnerable saves can only be taken against glancing or penetrating hits. They merely require that they be taken against glancing or penetrating hits, which is not at all the same thing.

We've seen precedent for invulnerable saves being taken against damage that is not a glancing or penetrating hit, in an example where GW didn't think it necessary to rewrite any rules.

We might also observe that the rules for vehicles acquiring cover saves on page 74 require only that they be fired upon - not that they suffer a glancing or penetrating hit. According to page 74, we determine whether a vehicle has a cover save whenever there is a "firer," and according to page 75, if a glancing or penetrating hit is suffered and a cover save exists, it must be taken. That leaves room, though, for cover saves to be taken even if there is not a glancing or penetrating hit.

Finally, somebody brought up the Vector Strike example already, but I don't think it got the attention it deserved. If the rule actually was that cover saves (as opposed to invulnerable saves, in this case) could only be taken against glancing or penetrating hits (page 75) caused by a firer (page 74), why would Vector Strike specify that no cover saves can be taken? Whether Vector Strike is a Melee attack or not, it clearly isn't a shooting attack. The fact that Vector Strike bothers to specify is further evidence, in my mind, that Tynskel is actually right - the rules assume that vehicles can take saves against damage, unless otherwise specified.

[Chris*ta]

Yes, but unfortunately the rules say glancing or penetrating hit, so cue a whole bunch of rather pointless quoting of that specific phrase in the rules ...

[Nabterayl]

Meh. That's just people not remembering their logic class. If all we know is if A then B, which of the following do we know?

If not A, then not B.
If not B, then not A.
The answer, of course, is 2. But people forget that all the time, and treat it as if it's 1.

To apply to the issue at hand, page 75 says that if a vehicle is obscured, it must take a cover save against a glancing or penetrating hit. This does not mean that if a vehicle does not suffer a glancing or penetrating hit, it cannot take a cover save.* It says nothing at all about whether a vehicle can, or cannot, take a cover save against a glancing or penetrating hit. That is not an obscure rules lawyer trick. That is just what it says.

* What it does mean is that if a vehicle does not take a cover save against a glancing or penetrating hit, it must not have been obscured. Which nobody cares about. But sometimes logic doesn't tell us the things we think it does, or care about.

[Chris*ta]

Couldn't you get B and not A, so long as B was instead caused by C? I'm not real good at logic ...

People just don't want to accept that you should get a cover save against a shooting attack, because ... I don't really know how to end that sentence.

[hisdudeness]

But where is the permission to take a cover save against anything other than Pen/Glance? We only have rules for those instances, so lacking permission we cannot take saves against anything other than those listed. Flickerfield could be a one off balance call, if anyone could find another example then I would be much closer to sold. It would also stop arguments of "FAQ from a different codex".

[Chris*ta]

I'm pretty sure you're the only one who's unhappy with taing a cover save against a grav weapon, why aren't you looking for a corroborating example?

[Nabterayl]

But where is the permission to take a cover save against anything other than Pen/Glance? We only have rules for those instances, so lacking permission we cannot take saves against anything other than those listed.
Well, we do have permission. We just don't know where it is. If we didn't already have permission, the Flickerfield issue would have had to be an amendment or an erratum, and not a FAQ.

As you yourself have said, there aren't that many effects in the game that cause damage to vehicles without rolling for armor penetration. Dangerous Terrain tests are the only one I can think of, aside from grav weapons. And in that one case, the answer we have is not, "Oh, yeah, we overlooked that in the rules" but "Well yes, of course you can."


Flickerfield could be a one off balance call, if anyone could find another example then I would be much closer to sold. It would also stop arguments of "FAQ from a different codex".
That way madness lies. If we're going to have a RAW discussion, we need to take GW at their word. There are other ways to have rules discussions, certainly, but if you're going to have a RAW discussion you can't say, "Well, let's interpret the rulebook literally, but not interpret the FAQs literally." That's not the game.

[hisdudeness]

@ Chris*st: I'm not unhappy, I could really care less either way. And I'm far from the only one...just the only one that is posting. The funny thing is that I've been playing 30k for 9+ months now (where the Grav Guns first hit the table) and have never had anyone claim that it was played the other way.

But as you can see, this can lead to a very iffy questions and I would like to be able throw down an answer that has been argued to death some place than at the table. I don't see why I need to find an example for (IMO) rules clearly written.

@Nabterayl: I agree that your view is valid, I'm just trying to squeeze out everything the "people of the internet" can find. My view is bias and I will not see what someone with an opposing view will see. I am a process person, taking everything in steps. If we go step by step, I don't see the rules allowing for a save.

I also don't see the 'implied' permission holding water. Can we really follow permission that is not effectively written in a valid source? This opens up for "tree falls in the woods" arguments.

[Nabterayl]

Well, it's certainly true that this is not one of those questions that has a clearly correct answer. Sometimes that's where the RAW falls out.

What we have in favor of cover and invulnerable saves is this:

Invulnerable saves can be taken against at least one thing that is not a glancing or penetrating hit, which GW thinks is already obvious from the text.
A vehicle is entitled to a cover save even if the firer doesn't generate a glancing or penetrating hit.
Vector Strike feels the need to specify that no cover saves can be taken.
What we have against cover and invulnerable saves is this:

Nothing says explicitly, "You can take a cover save against things that are not a glancing or penetrating hit.
The truth is, neither set of evidence is strong enough to allow us to produce from the text a general principle of when cover and invulnerable saves can be taken by a vehicle. And that's ... as far as the RAW goes. Everything after that comes down to what the players find the most reasonable.

Personally, I think the case for cover and invulnerable saves being taken is stronger than the case against. But I wouldn't say that the text says that you can, any more than I would say the text says that you can't. The text simply doesn't say. Sometimes rules agreements boil down to one side not properly reading the text. Other times they boil down to judging which body of evidence is more persuasive. This is one of the latter.

[Patrick Boyle]

We might also observe that when Tynskel contends that cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against any shooting attack, he isn't making a facially ridiculous argument. We've already observed that pages 17 and 75 do not say that cover and invulnerable saves can only be taken against glancing or penetrating hits. They merely require that they be taken against glancing or penetrating hits, which is not at all the same thing.

We've seen precedent for invulnerable saves being taken against damage that is not a glancing or penetrating hit, in an example where GW didn't think it necessary to rewrite any rules.

We might also observe that the rules for vehicles acquiring cover saves on page 74 require only that they be fired upon - not that they suffer a glancing or penetrating hit. According to page 74, we determine whether a vehicle has a cover save whenever there is a "firer," and according to page 75, if a glancing or penetrating hit is suffered and a cover save exists, it must be taken. That leaves room, though, for cover saves to be taken even if there is not a glancing or penetrating hit.

Finally, somebody brought up the Vector Strike example already, but I don't think it got the attention it deserved. If the rule actually was that cover saves (as opposed to invulnerable saves, in this case) could only be taken against glancing or penetrating hits (page 75) caused by a firer (page 74), why would Vector Strike specify that no cover saves can be taken? Whether Vector Strike is a Melee attack or not, it clearly isn't a shooting attack. The fact that Vector Strike bothers to specify is further evidence, in my mind, that Tynskel is actually right - the rules assume that vehicles can take saves against damage, unless otherwise specified.

Except that if I'm remembering right Vector Strike does count as firing a weapon/a shooting attack, so they would need to specify no cover saves. Someone with the book want to check? Maybe that ruling was only for the Heldrake Vector Striking...

[Nabterayl]

It "counts as having already fired one weapon in its following Shooting phase." Thus, if you ever need to know, "How many weapons have I fired in this Shooting phase?" you need to count the Vector Strike. However, nothing says that it counts as a Shooting attack, or even as firing a weapon, in the Movement phase when the attack actually occurs.

[Garradh]

Damn this is some delicious lawyerball! Thanks for all the clarifications (so far), can't wait for the FAQ!

[Alexander Rae]

This needs an FAQ because RAW you do not get a Cover Save. There is nowhere in the rules up until Grav Weapons where this situation has arisen.

The best solution for this as we ALL have a good idea what the intention is, would be for everyone in the competitive community to email [email protected] and ask a one line question: "Do vehicles get cover saves from Graviton weapons?" So they can give us the one word answer we need to move forwards.

Until then Tournaments need to FAQ this in their rules packs.

It isn't down to the players in interpret ambiguous rules in competitive settings. Sure the 'First Rule' and rolling off for it etc etc is fine and dandy for pick up games or beer and pretzel situations, but competitive rulings need to be made above the players. Because one person's logical conclusions might not match up with another's.

Best example: Jaws of the World Wolf affects Monstrous Creatures. However Rules As Written, Flying Monstrous Creatures are an entirely different unit type and as different from Monstrous Creatures as a Tank or a Bike is.

If you ask me, LOGICALLY if I ground a Flying Monstrous Creature I should be able to cast Jaws on him because he is no longer flying. In game I just made him crash to the ground with shooting and am now opening up a chasm beneath him which he would fall down.

Ask someone else and they may think a failed grounding check just means he is in Glide mode rather than Swoop so he is still 'flying' off the ground therefor it makes sense that he wouldn't be able to fall down a chasm in the floor. So Jaws not affecting FMCs makes perfect sense to them.

This is why an individual player's idea of interpreting intention cannot work in competitive settings. We are all Roleplaying in our minds. We need a 'Gamesmaster' to tell us what the resolution is. And this is why things like this, no matter how much you may think they are cheesy and powergamey etc need to at least be answered one way or the other by an authority above the players standing at the table.

[hisdudeness]

I agree with the meat of your post, but the FMC example is a poor one. Fluff should rarely (if ever) be used to interpret rules.

[Tynskel]

This needs an FAQ because RAW you do not get a Cover Save. There is nowhere in the rules up until Grav Weapons where this situation has arisen.


I am not sure what you are talking about.
There have been *plenty* of times in the rules where a weapon *looks* like it doesn't have a cover save, but fulfills all the criteria of a cover save, i.e. ranged attack, target in cover/obscured, damage dealt. In *every* single one of these instances, the cover save is granted.

That is RAW.
Every single one.
The RAW interpretation is that you get cover from guns if you are in cover!

The only way to be denied cover is when the weapon *explicitly* states it denies cover.

[hisdudeness]

And that is where the disagreement happens. I'm not buying the 'explicit' idea.

[Tynskel]

And that is where the disagreement happens. I'm not buying the 'explicit' idea.

Give an example beyond Grav Weapons! That's right, everyone one of them has been FAQed.

[hisdudeness]

Yet again and claim of 'every single one' and still no list.

[Tynskel]

Yet again and claim of 'every single one' and still no list.

I have told you already, read the thread.
I have already given examples.


I don't need to hold your hand and teach you how to read the FAQs. Those are online. You are obviously online, because you are on this thread. Go to GW's Website, and read the rules.

Your case for RAW is obviously in trouble, because you haven't read the rules, and you cannot even think of the examples I have given previously.

[hisdudeness]

And me and others have said you have not posted those examples. At least not in this thread. It is not my job to find the examples you claim are there, it is your job to present them. I'm not going to waste my time digging through 10+ FAQS to support your argument. I'm beginning to wonder if they are even there in the first place.

[Nabterayl]

I have told you already, read the thread.
I have already given examples.
No, you haven't. Can you quote the posts in which you have done so? Or link to them? They aren't in this thread, not as far as I can tell.


I don't need to hold your hand and teach you how to read the FAQs.
No, you don't. But you do have a responsibility not to make an argument without adducing your evidence. If you really can't be bothered to make adduce it afresh, you must at least provide enough information that the evidence in mind can be located.

Saying, "All the FAQed examples are against you" is not nearly precise enough. You have to at least say, "The example of Flickerfields, X, Y, and Z are against you."

Saying, "We've already been over this, and all the arguments you make have been answered" is not enough. You have to at least provide a link to the thread in which they were answered.

Saying, "I've already provided examples in this very thread" when both hisdudeness (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?35450-Grav-weapons-and-vehicles&p=351733&viewfull=1#post351733) and I (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?35450-Grav-weapons-and-vehicles&p=351798&viewfull=1#post351798) have said that you didn't is not enough. You have to at least provide a link to the posts where you did so.

If you can't at least do any of those things, then you're at least as lazy as somebody who can't read a FAQ and come to the same conclusion you do.

[Tynskel]

No, you haven't. Can you quote the posts in which you have done so? Or link to them? They aren't in this thread, not as far as I can tell.


Actually I have, you may not have remembered the Doom of Malantai...
Then there's the Mawloc.

Then there's the Hive Guard, representing the opposite.



additionally, the thread is *right* here. If they cannot go back and read the thread, that's a problem. It is just a couple clicks away...

[hisdudeness]

Dude, no you have not presented any FAQs. Lets look at your first 3 posts:

1st post [#24]- claims of 'automatic' and 'explicit', no mention of FAQ
2nd post [#29]- 1st mention of "every single time", no mention of FAQ
3rd post [#31]- 2nd mention of "every single time", mention of Doom example but not a FAQ.

I have read this thread 3 complete times and not once do you list the "every single time" FAQs in this entire thread. If you are going to present those as proof, we kinda need where that proof is. Just saying that "they are in the FAQ and get off your butt to read them" doesn't fly.

Can we at least get a list of the posts in which you list these "every single time" examples?

[Tynskel]

I just did. Presented 3.

here's some help:
http://tinyurl.com/cogxmde