So, the Grav-Weapon Conundrum

[Etched Oracle]

I'm sure most of you have seen but just to cover it, the rule on Grav-weapons is as follows:

"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."

So the big questions are:

1. Does this negate a vehicle's Cover save?
2. Would 2 hits due to Salvo cause 3HP loss?

I'm bringing this up as I will no doubt be fielding a gun or 2 in my games and I want to ensure there are no arguements midgame by instating a 'Club Rule' until this is FAQ'd. I have no preference over with interpretation of the rules is used, so long as everyone knows and is aware of it.

For what its worth I believe it does negate the Cover save as its bypassing the Glance/Pen step, but that 2 shots would result in 2HP loss not 3 as the shots are resolved simulataneously, so the vehicle wouldn't be Immobilised at the time for either shot as they resolve together.

[sprogmcjob]

right so the answer is this 2 hits would cause 2 hull points lose but because it causes the immobilized result loses another hull point for a total of 3 hull points (nothing to do with salvo which just causes more shots) i believe this to be the case after they clear up the weapon destroyed result (in previous faq same case with autocannon causing 2 weapon destroyed can it be same weapon since its happening at same time answer was no) unless they will faq it for this weapon since thats a little too gd (but maybe not it is on a 6)

i believed cover saves are allowed since the weapon doesn't say it ignores cover saves the same way u can take cover from haywire bombs and haywire gun but i guess until clarified there is an argument i guess it ignores cover (like another doom of malan tai argument lols) my personal feel is this was an oversight and abitly should read on a 6 causes a pentating hit with the result being the immoblized result

[Etched Oracle]

I understand why there is a 3HP loss due to stacking of Immobilised, the confusion comes from the damage being simultaneous which means at the time of the damage the vehicle is not Immobilised. It would only cause the additional HP loss if the damage is resolved one at a time, which goes against the core rules (This is my Magic mind kicking in).

[jaqenhgar]

Personally, I think it loses only 2HP since the first hit means immobilised and -1 hull point, the second hit it loses a hull point and is already immobilised so that has no effect. I understand an immobilised result usually also results in a hull pt loss and hence where the 3 hp is coming from, but I think it's trying to specifically state that each 6 causes 1hp loss.

Regarding cover, not really sure, it is a hit and it doesn't specify ignores cover which a lot of things do, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for a grav weapon to ignore cover so could go either way with this one.

Why can't GW write rules properly?!

[Gareth]

Why can't GW write rules properly?!

Because their core game systems (by which I mean WFB and 40k,) are meant to be played by kids. The games are designed to be easy to pick up, but that leaves huge gaping gaps in their language. Most kids don't think as much like adults, and cannot pick holes in their systems.

Just remember the most important rule, and all is golden (MIR = GW get out of jail card.)

[GoNecrons]

1. Does this negate a vehicle's Cover save?
Nope. Same wording as haywire. You can still get cover saves from it if you have one.

2. Would 2 hits due to Salvo cause 3HP loss?
Yes. Two six results on the "pen" roll would if they where unsaved.
1st from Immobilized result
2nd from 2nd Immobilized result
3rd from scoring a second Immobilized result, if you are immobilized you suffer another hull point :O(
So 3 in total.

Next question for me is does this Immobilized result mean you have "penned" the vechicle? I am thinking quantum Shielding. I am going to have to guess that it would bring the shields down but.......rules lawyers at the ready.

More FAQ's required. I have had a look at the codex and I like what I saw.

Baggy first digs with anyone bringing a hunter or stalker along

[Embolden]

Finally got my grubby mitts on the SM codex and my thoughts are:

No ignoring cover - still rolling to hit and no rule/wording that states ignore cover.

and yes 3HPs caused as the second immobilised result causes a further HP damage.

A bit late to the party, but thats how I'd play it.

[jaqenhgar]

Fair enough.

[Nick1988]

Finally got my grubby mitts on the SM codex and my thoughts are:

No ignoring cover - still rolling to hit and no rule/wording that states ignore cover.

and yes 3HPs caused as the second immobilised result causes a further HP damage.

A bit late to the party, but thats how I'd play it.

Thatd how i read it too! Hence my army is full of grav cannons muahahahaha just waiting for GW to say cover saves cannot be taken (probably being a bit optimistic) so my list is super overpowered! :p

[Nick1988]

Although, do serpent shields still get to try and negate the 'pen' to a glance? Hmmmm