Is having an Immobilzed result the same as losing a hull point?

[chicop76]

This topic came to mind when I read the Grav weapon issue. I am away from my referance material, but I will address the issue from what I remember. Meaning I can't qoute rght now, but can later.

That being said I might as well cover other situations as well. This is an old topic, but I don't remember what forum I posted this issue on. Which means I may link the old topic as well. If I have the answers I'll simply cut and paste since I was the author of the material, but linking would be faster.

First off you have to realize what normally causes hull point damage. Penatrating hits, glances, or failing dangerous terrain test on vehicles.

That being said some vehicles alreay come immobilzed in play. Which are drop pods for example. Due to their nature the resault of being immobilzed does not incur hull point. Damage and you can deep strike in without automatically geting a hulpoint damage, unless you land in difficult terrain and force a dangerous terrain test and lose a hull point and you will lose a weapon since you are all ready immobilized.

If you simply look at the general FAQ or and Marine FAQ it will cover this issue.

Now the grav cannon can cause a hull point and an immobilzed effect. If you bother reading through both FAQ's you can get your answer from there. Anyway one shot would only make a vehicle immobilized and take hull point damage. Another shot would do another hull point and a weapon destroyed.

The issue is if the grav cannon said on a 6 you pen or glance and than throw in a hull pont damage and the immobilzed effect than the vehicle will take two hull points of damage. Since you are not penatrating or glancing and going strait to the immobilized effect you are not receiving hull point damage for being immobilzed.

Simply put. Read what immobilzed does and follow the rules for the statis effect, if it says it causes hull point damage than yes you will take the damage. If you need to pen or glance to cause a hull point worth of damage and the weapon does not pen or glance than you can't dish out two hull points.

So two to do two hull points like some people want.
A. On a roll of 6 the grav weapon have to pen or glance
B. On the result table Immobilized have to say it causes a hull point.

Personally I don'tsee the issue here since a similar issue like this one has been Faqed and answered.

[Nabterayl]

Another shot would do another hull point and a weapon destroyed.
Probably a function of you being away from your reference material, but that is not true. Subsequent immobilizations do not destroy weapons; they deduct additional hull points. As the Immobilised result on the vehicle damage table says says:


Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle, or a Flyer with locked Velocity (see page 81) instead remove an additional Hull Point.

I think that the result of multiple grav weapon hits is perfectly clear in terms of hull points. Graviton says:


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 Immobilised result and loses a single Hull Point.

Since the rule specifies that a 6 inflicts an Immobilised result, it's perfectly clear that if a vehicle is already immobilized (whether because it's a drop pod, has already been hit by a grav weapon, failed a Dangerous Terrain test, or any other reason), a 6 on a Graviton roll inflicts two hull points' worth of damage - one because Graviton always deducts a hull point on a 6, and another because that's what the Immobilised result tells you to do.

The save issue is similarly clear, in my opinion, albeit more surprising to people. The Graviton rule doesn't say that a 6 causes either a glancing or penetrating hit, and the rules only ever specify that vehicles can take cover and invulnerable saves against glancing or penetrating hits - ergo, no saves permitted. Maybe this is surprising to the design team too. I suppose we'll find out eventually whether they meant what they wrote in this regard.

[DarkLink]

I suspect it's mostly sloppy wording on GWs part. But it is fairly clear how it works.

[shabbadoo]

Vehicles get cover saves vs. graviton weapons. I don't know how the OP thinks that the order in which things are done, or if some step is altered, that it negates other steps in the whole process.

The process is: Roll to Hit (if required) ---> Roll to Wound/Damage (if required) ---> Allocate Wound/Damage---> Save (if applicable).

Now lets look at two weapons that alter the process.

Template Weapons: Roll to Hit (NOT required) ---> Roll to Wound/Damage (required) ---> Allocate Wound/Damage---> Save (if applicable).

Graviton Weapons: Roll to Hit (required) ---> Roll to Wound/Damage (required vs. models with Wounds; NOT required vs. vehicles) ---> Allocate Wound/Damage---> Save (if applicable).

No that the process is still followed completely, and exactly how is this in any way remotely difficult to understand? It isn't.

Golden rule: rules by admission, NOT by omission.

A Drop Pod (which is already Immobilized upon entering play) that gets hit by a graviton weapon suffers a hull point of damage an an Immobilized result, and since it is already Immobilized the Immobilized effect from the graviton hit becomes takes away another Hull Point in addition to the one that it already does, meaning the Drop Pod is Wrecked.

[kire]

Golden rule: rules by admission, not by omission.



What are you talking about. In a game containing "the most important rule" the designers never stoop to such levels of ineptitude as to require that any rule interaction doesn't occur unless spelled out. this my be an over site by the designers (and probably is) but you cant work with a rule set on the basis of what you think was intended. ask religion, and politics how that turns out.

[DarkLink]

The process is: Roll to Hit (if required) ---> Roll to Wound/Damage (if required) ---> Allocate Wound/Damage---> Save (if applicable)


You see that little part where it says 'where applicable'? That's the part you're missing. Why do vehicles get saves at all? Because theres a rule that says vehicles get cover against glances and pens. It does not say vehicles get cover saves against all damage, just against glances and pens. For a vehicle to get a save against grav guns, they need to do a glance/pen, and it seems pretty clear they don't.

[daboarder]

lets be honest here though darklink, there is almost no way thats how it was intended to work, its one of those stupid "poorly thoought out new gadget" easter eggs that pop up.

the whole argument sound very similar to the "vehicles can get cover saves against ignore cover weapons"

[chicop76]

My bad, damn 5th edition, so used to glancing or destroying vehicles I nevereally had an oppurtunuity to cause double immobilization results yet.

That being said the initial 6 would cause one hull point worth of damage and immobilze a vehicle, while the second would cause two hull points which would wreak most vehicles.

Now if you had tank hunter with that and you can generate 2 6s you can get rid of most vehicles.

[Tynskel]

Yeah, I am still not sure how people are constructing the 'no save' argument. Damage has been inflicted, and if you look at the FAQs, the precedents they set: You get a save whenever possible, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Just look at Spirit Leech. Nothing about it is a roll to hit, yet you still get a cover save.

As for the grav-weapon. You only get 1 save. 1 hit, 1 save.

Additionally, the rule is pretty clear that if you are already immobilized, the grav-weapon spells doom for the immobile object.

[Nabterayl]

Sure you are. You just think that we should resort to FAQs even if there is no ambiguity in the rules, if we find what is written sufficiently surprising.

[Tynskel]

Sure you are. You just think that we should resort to FAQs even if there is no ambiguity in the rules, if we find what is written sufficiently surprising.

I am pointing out a known consistency in the rules.
The rule itself may not have been explicit, but the interpretation is consistent.

If the FAQs were not consistent (like the INATFAQ), then I wouldn't be saying this. Instead, I would be agreeing with the interpretation of no save. However, we know that interpretation is consistent within the FAQs.

I cannot find an instance where something does not get a save and the save was not explicitly denied. Please enlighten me, if one knows of one.

[Nabterayl]

I don't believe the Dangerous Terrain question has been addressed officially, but that also seems pretty clear to me as an example where a hull point is deducted and neither cover nor invulnerable saves can be taken. Of course, it may not be so clear to you. I can't think of a case where there has been a question of, "Does this get a save?" the RAW says no, and the FAQ says no.

Can you give a few examples where the RAW says no and the FAQ says yes, though?

[Tynskel]

I mentioned Spirit Leech, previously...

But I must admit, the Dangerous Terrain idea just makes no sense. Seriously, how do you get a cover save from crashing into cover? Is that like saying one is not ugly, even though one fell from the ugly tree and hit *every* branch on the way down?

[Nabterayl]

I don't see the Spirit Leech analogy. Spirit Leech says, "... with no armour saves allowed." The Tyranid FAQ (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2940052a_Tyranids_v1.2_JANUARY13.pdf) says:


Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds inflicted by the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability? (p58)
A: Yes.

I know some people thought that "no armour saves allowed" somehow implied that no saves of any kind were allowed, but ... I don't like to insult people's reading ability, but those people were on crack :P

EDIT: Sorry, I wasn't actually present for the Spirit Leech controversy. I take it people were arguing that, as it isn't explicitly a shooting attack, no cover saves could be taken against it as no rule permits cover saves to be taken except against shooting attacks? That's not a terrible argument, but the fact that Spirit Leech explicitly disallows armor saves belies it, by my reading. You can't take armor saves against unsaved Wounds, either - the only form of save that is explicitly allowed against any unsaved Wound is invulnerable saves (page 16). Armor saves are only allowed in specified instances. For Spirit Leech to disallow armor saves, it must be something against which an armor save is explicitly authorized in the first place, such as a shooting attack, a Dangerous Terrain test, a close combat attack, a Gets Hot! wound, or some such. I'm not convinced that the fact that Spirit Leech is evidently a shooting attack (or something like it) represents a trend in the FAQs in favor of "things that cause damage are treated like shooting attacks."

It's not just a cover save against Dangerous Terrain. I don't see why a Sisters of Battle vehicle should be able to take an invulnerable save against a Dangerous Terrain test, for instance - but if you don't agree with me that vehicles cannot take cover or invulnerable saves against the effects of a failed Dangerous Terrain test, then that's not a useful analogy.

[Tynskel]

Well, if we are going to be consistent with the interpretations, the cover save for spirit leech comes from the fact that it is essentially 'shooting' attack, even though it was not defined that way. We know that the Grav-Gun *is* a shooting attack. The point was with 5th Edition, you got a cover save from shooting attacks, not from anything.

I think invulnerable saves are exactly that: you are invulnerable. I don't see why can't a force field prevent catastrophic damage from a collision.

I just don't understand how a collision is preventing catastrophic damage from a collision.


A cover save is exactly how it is implied: something is in between the weapon and the target, thus preventing the target from being hit.

You don't get Cover Saves in Close Combat, because there isn't anything between the models, technically speaking. You do not get a cover save from Dangerous Terrain, because there isn't any cover between the unit and the terrain.


It would be inconsistent to not get a cover save from Grav-Weapons for tanks, but get a cover save from grav-weapons for infantry.

[Nabterayl]

Well yeah, of course it would. You and I have different standards for how to read what is written; we know that (and for anybody watching the show, now you know it too!). Do you have any other examples to further your assertion that there's a trend in the FAQs towards treating things that do damage as attacks? Or does this come down to one's standard for RAW?

[Tynskel]

At the moment, no. Most of the 'issues' have been changed with rules changes (e.g. Psychic powers are now classified as particular attacks).

I still think it is pretty consistent.
If something is in between the firer and the target: cover save, whether it is a shooting attack or not.

[Vangrail]

You get cover saves vs grav weapons u roll to hit. You have a chance to hit the cover

[Vangrail]

Also if a grav weapon rolls a 6 the vehicle only suffers 1 hull point. The immobilize is just a bonus effect.

[Tynskel]

you need to read the full rules for immobilized. If your vehicle has not been immobilized, then it is immobilized. However, if you are *already* immobilized, then the immobilized result is converted to a hull point.

This is consistent with the rules: If you roll a penetration, you automatically do a hull point damage, in addition to whatever effect is rolled on the chart. So, if you roll a penetration, *and* you get immobilized *and* the target was previously immobilized, you would do 2 hull point damage.

[Nabterayl]

you need to read the full rules for immobilized. If your vehicle has not been immobilized, then it is immobilized. However, if you are *already* immobilized, then the immobilized result is converted to a hull point.

This is consistent with the rules: If you roll a penetration, you automatically do a hull point damage, in addition to whatever effect is rolled on the chart. So, if you roll a penetration, *and* you get immobilized *and* the target was previously immobilized, you would do 2 hull point damage.
On this, I think we all agree.

[chicop76]

Like I said before the double hill point thing is a simple rule look and I couldn't understand how that was confusing.

The igoring cover saves or even invulnerable saves for that matter I am on the fence. On my next day off I can try to spend time on it since it seems like it will be one of those involved rules.

For the mean time think of marker lights for example. You get no cover or invulnerable saves from that shooting attack.

Also look at psychic abilities like from the psyker battle squad lowering leadership. The only save you get vs that is deny the witch, but no armour or invulnerable save there.

Against models it does wound so there is no issue until you fire at a vehicle. You have no pen or glance which means no save. It makes sense over all if you think about it. If you can save against it than you can save against marker lights and let's say puppet master for example with cover or invulnerable saves.

For me I don't have the book yet and going by what people are saying, so until I read the Marine book I am on the fence. Although I can easily see why you wouldn't get a save against. Also keep in mind the weapon needs 6s to do anything which makes it not an over powering ability to begin with, so it might ignore saves on vehicles. If so I would take grav over plasma every time, still take meltas though.

[trichloro]

Dangerous Terrain and Grav weapons are very similar as both cause an immoblized result and lose of hull point, without a glance or pen needed.
You can only take saves vs pen or glances, being cover saves(pg 75 rule book) or invul saves(gw rule book FAQ).
So if you allow saves for grav wepons you need to allow saves for dangerous terrain fails as well.
There is one issue with this. The Dark Eldar FAQ states:
Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a
Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

Which allows invuls against something that is not a pen or a glance.

Just for completeness here is the info from the GQ main rule book FAQ:

Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves
Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are
different to armour saves because they may always be taken
whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,
suffers a penetrating or glancing hit – the Armour Piercing
value of attacking weapons has no effect upon an Invulnerable
save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores
all armour saves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”.


The question is which one take precedent? The main rule book FAQ or Dark eldar? My guess is the Dark Eldar which would allow saves for vehicles against non glan or pen results, as it is the more "advanced" rule per page 7 of the rule book. If you give saves to dangerous terrain then you need to give it to grav guns as well, as they use the same mechanic.

[Asuryan]

lets be honest here though darklink, there is almost no way thats how it was intended to work, its one of those stupid "poorly thoought out new gadget" easter eggs that pop up.

the whole argument sound very similar to the "vehicles can get cover saves against ignore cover weapons"

i agree, and i think its just poorly worded rules, and along the same line with the ignore cover weapons if my little eldar can get cover from a grav weapon then my tanks can to. but to be a devils advocate, i would also say that the serpent shield wouldn't do anything for a grav gun immobilizing a wave serpent since it's not a penetrating hit, which is the same logic that people are using for it not getting saves.

[Nabterayl]

Dangerous Terrain and Grav weapons are very similar as both cause an immoblized result and lose of hull point, without a glance or pen needed.
You can only take saves vs pen or glances, being cover saves(pg 75 rule book) or invul saves(gw rule book FAQ).
So if you allow saves for grav wepons you need to allow saves for dangerous terrain fails as well.
There is one issue with this. The Dark Eldar FAQ states:
Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a
Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

Which allows invuls against something that is not a pen or a glance.

Just for completeness here is the info from the GQ main rule book FAQ:

Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves
Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are
different to armour saves because they may always be taken
whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,
suffers a penetrating or glancing hit – the Armour Piercing
value of attacking weapons has no effect upon an Invulnerable
save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores
all armour saves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”.


The question is which one take precedent? The main rule book FAQ or Dark eldar? My guess is the Dark Eldar which would allow saves for vehicles against non glan or pen results, as it is the more "advanced" rule per page 7 of the rule book. If you give saves to dangerous terrain then you need to give it to grav guns as well, as they use the same mechanic.
Ah, that's classic BoLS rules forum! An actual argument in favor, with all the components thereof! Good show, sir!

I feel like this is strong evidence that invulnerable saves could be taken against a Graviton hit, at least, and ... at least probative that cover saves could be taken as well.

[DarkLink]

It's also worth noting that grav weapons don't actually directly specify that they aren't glance/pens. It's still possible that the 'effects' of a grav weapon are still glances/pens that automatically roll an immobilized, and that gw was just too lazy to use precise enough wordingvto clarify that.

[cebalrai]

GW needs to give us an FAQ like yesterday. But they decided back in April that we shouldn't really have any real FAQs anymore so here we are.

On that note, if vehicles can make invuln saves against immobilization from terrain as per the DE FAQ, why couldn't they make invuln saves against grav gun immobilization?

[Nabterayl]

GW needs to give us an FAQ like yesterday. But they decided back in April that we shouldn't really have any real FAQs anymore so here we are.

On that note, if vehicles can make invuln saves against immobilization from terrain as per the DE FAQ, why couldn't they make invuln saves against grav gun immobilization?
As I said (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?35498-Is-having-an-Immobilzed-result-the-same-as-losing-a-hull-point&p=347231&viewfull=1#post347231), in light of that FAQ, I see no reasonable argument that a vehicle couldn't take an invulnerable save against a grav weapon.

[dreadnoughtguy]

I wouldn't count on this being faq'd to say that grav will only do one point per 6 and the extra from immobilized. Or that you do not get cover saves.

GK nemesis falchions faq. pair of swords rules say they grant +1 attack ... so two weapons with a +1 for the ability should be +2 attacks ... but no GW decided to make the obvious two swords not count as two weapons and instead only grant +1 attack.

its another instance where GW just pulls decisions out of their backsides. they are never consistent with rule application.

[shabbadoo]

You see that little part where it says 'where applicable'? That's the part you're missing. Why do vehicles get saves at all? Because theres a rule that says vehicles get cover against glances and pens. It does not say vehicles get cover saves against all damage, just against glances and pens. For a vehicle to get a save against grav guns, they need to do a glance/pen, and it seems pretty clear they don't.
You are just plain wrong so far as I can tell, but don't take my word for it- here are the rules:



VEHICLES AND COVER- OBSCURED TARGETS
Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry
- their sheer size and bulk mean they cannot take advantage of
cover as well as smaller, more agile troops. They can, however,
position themselves in such away as to make it harder for the
enemy to hit them in a vulnerable location. The difference from
the way cover works for other models is represented by the
following exceptions to the normal rules for cover:

* At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being
targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by
intervening terrain or models from the point of view
of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover. If this is the
case, the vehicle is obscured (or 'hull down'). If a unit is
firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25%
hidden from the majority of the firing models that are
able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in
two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out
whether or nor the vehicle is obscured separately for each
facing, using only models firing at that facing.
I don't see the terms "glancing hit" or "penetrating hit" anywhere in there, just the terms "If a unit is firing at..." and "...being fired at..." and "damage". Being fired at is the only condition for determining whether or not to see if a target is obscured or not. They very purposely changed the language for 6E. So, do graviton weapons fire at stuff? Yes, they do, so we go to the "VEHICLES AND COVER- OBSCURED TARGETS" rules section in the 6E 40K Rulebook to see what protection a vehicle might get, or not.

You seem to be confusing the 6E 40k Rulebook with the 5E 40k Rulebook, which states:



If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or
penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it,
exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a
wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a
building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). If the save is
passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the
Vehicle Damage table.
That would be where the "glancing or penetrating hit" condition appears, but this isn't 5E 40K anymore, and that condition is non-existent in 6E 40k so far as I can find. Can you provide some sort of actual 6E 40K Rulebook information that contradicts this? I have to ask, and not be seem smug or snarky, but because it is always possible that I missed something in the 6E 40k Rulebook myself (i.e. almost nobody ever remembers everything). The goal is to "get it right" after all. :)

[Katharon]

You don't lose a hull point when you immobilize yourself when taking a dangerous terrain check, so no, you don't lose a hull point from multiple immobilize results; especially since you're not rolling on the Vehicle Damage Chart.

[Nabterayl]

You don't lose a hull point when you immobilize yourself when taking a dangerous terrain check, so no, you don't lose a hull point from multiple immobilize results; especially since you're not rolling on the Vehicle Damage Chart.
Wait ... yes you do. As page 71 says (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf), "A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point."


ng hit" or "penetrating hit" anywhere in there, just the terms "If a unit is firing at..." and "...being fired at..." and "damage". Being fired at is the only condition for determining whether or not to see if a target is obscured or not. They very purposely changed the language for 6E. So, do graviton weapons fire at stuff? Yes, they do, so we go to the "VEHICLES AND COVER- OBSCURED TARGETS" rules section in the 6E 40K Rulebook to see what protection a vehicle might get, or not.
That's true, but the part of the rules you quoted only covers whether or not the vehicle is obscured. The only rules that actually cover what to do with with a vehicle cover save are on page 75:


If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a wood and so on). If the save is passed, the hit is discarded, no Hull Points are lost and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table.

So we are told that if a vehicle has a cover save, it must take it against a glancing or penetrating hit (subject to the caveats that cover multiple saves, "exactly like" non-vehicle models). We aren't told what to do at all if a vehicle has a cover save and doesn't suffer a glancing or penetrating hit.

However, I think you're quite right that a vehicle obtains a cover save simply by being fired at. I, at least, had forgotten that. So ... since the rules don't tell us what to do with a cover save when a vehicle is entitled to one but doesn't suffer a glancing or penetrating hit, is it most reasonable to "fill in" that the vehicle can take its cover save against the effects of the shot anyway, or that it can't? I am now leaning towards the former, personally.

[Katharon]

I'd like to smack the FAQ writers around for a bit. What complete trash.

However, you still don't get the extra HP; because they only get an HP taken off from a Immobilize result if they had taken and failed a Dangerous Terrain Check. Getting shot by a grav-weapon is not taking and failing a Dangerous Terrain Check. Ergo, you don't lose an extra HP for multiple immobilize results.

[DarkLink]

In the rules, the only thing ever described as 'an immobilized result' is precisely the very thing that causes extra hull points. If it just said 'the vehicle is immobilized' then there would be no extra hull points. That's not what it says. It says immobilized result. You lose extra hull points, that isn't really debatable.

And what are you smacking the faq writers around for? Losing a hull point on an immobilized result? That isn't an faq, that's in the actual rulebook.

[Katharon]

In the rules, the only thing ever described as 'an immobilized result' is precisely the very thing that causes extra hull points. If it just said 'the vehicle is immobilized' then there would be no extra hull points. That's not what it says. It says immobilized result. You lose extra hull points, that isn't really debatable.

And what are you smacking the faq writers around for? Losing a hull point on an immobilized result? That isn't an faq, that's in the actual rulebook.


But what CAUSED the immobilized result matters. A grav weapon does not cause a vehicle to take a Dangerous Terrain Check, it simply takes on HP and its immediately immobilized. Immobilized doesn't stack with Grav weapons.

[Nabterayl]

Katharon, I'm confused. You read Graviton as saying, "causes the vehicle to be immobilized, but do not apply the text of the Immobilised result on the vehicle damage table?"

[DarkLink]

No, the source doesn't matter, not when it specifically says the vehicle suffers an immobilized result. You go in the rulebook and find 'immobilized result', and it very clearly states that immobilized results stack for extra hull points. Again, this isn't really debatable. The rule explains exactly what happens.

"Immobilized result" is very clearly defined, and is different from a simple "immobilized".

[Aegwymourn]

I had this FAQ for the BRB pointed out early today in relation for Grav-Weapons -

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.

After reading that I am thinking that you only lose one Hull Point from a Grav-Weapon rolling a 6.

[DarkLink]

...yes? I'm not sure what you thought Grav weapons did before you read the FAQ.

Against a vehicle with a Grav weapon, on a '6' you suffer one hull point of damage and an immobilized result. Because each immobilized result after the first causes an additional hull point of damage, each 6 from a grav weapon after the first does two hull points of damage, one from the grav weapon and one from the stacked immobilized result. The Grav weapon rules specifically state you lose a hull point, and the immobilized result rules specifically state you lose another hull point. So I'm not entirely sure where that FAQ comes into play.

[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).