Grav weapons, discuss

[andalucien]

Hmm, actually, I'm having trouble finding where it says what Vehicles can take an invul save for...   the rulebook doesn't seem to describe it anywhere.

This is the only place I can find where the rulebook even describes what a save for a vehicle means :

". 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 of5+ 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."

It's in the section for vehicle cover.  So, since we have no other information I would assume that invul saves are the same way (you take them against glancing and penetrating hits and it negates the effects of the hit).   BUt.... it's not exactly spelled out.

Anyone else have another relevant snippet?

[PhoenixFire]

the 24 inch range on the cannons is the main limiting factor, sure you get 5 shots and the ability to re-roll wounds because of the grav amp but it's still on a T5, 2 wound, no invuln save expensive platform

grav cannons could be devestating to vehicles though, a 3 man Centurion squad pumping 15 shots into a vehicle, sure you need 6s but with the grav amp you get to re-roll and i'm no math expert but i'm pretty sure you've got a good chance or wiping out a vehicle per turn (within the crappy 24 inch range of course)

their usefullness will come down to how GW, Sam and the interwebs rule on if vehicles get cover, invuln, and daemon saves



the grav gun i think is the best of the bunch, 15 points just like a plasma

you get 2 (or 3 salvo) shots at 18 instead of having to get into 12 range to get 2
AP 2 just like plasma but without gets hot!
easier to wound MCs than a str7 plasma (unless of course it's an MC without an armor save)

[Sir_Prometheus]

There was bit where lots of people were arguing "ignores cover" doesn't work on cover saves of vehicles, because the ignores cover rule only referenced saves against wounds.  Except, then you go and look, under vehicles when it discusses cover saves, it says "just like a model that has been wounded" which kinda routes around the whole issue.

People need to get over the fact that GW is non-technical and writes it's rules in common english.

Anyway, the real reason that you don't get an invo save against scarabs (or cover against the harp thing)for vehicles is that against vehicles the effect is on the "hit" rather on the damage result, while against models with wounds it is after a wound is unsaved against.  It's not really that it doesn't cause either a glance or a pen.  Same way you don't get a cover save against markerlights or DA rad grenades -- the effect happens when the hit happens, not when a wound occurs.  Mindstrike missiles, too. 

SO the real differentiator is not whether a pen or glance occurs, but whether the effect happens at the "hit" stage or the "wound/damage" stage.  Grav weapons affect vehicles at the damage stage, so I'd say yes, you get a cover save against them.  Not that GW necessarily is going to follow that logic when they make a FAQ od course, they break their own precedent and logic all the time. 

[andalucien]

Entropic strike says, "For each hit a vehicle suffers from a weapon or model with this special rule, roll a D6..."   

Graviton says, "When resolving a hit against a vehicle, roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling for damage penetration as normal..."

Sir Prometheus, are you saying that you think cover saves apply to Graviton but not to Entropic strike because the Graviton effect REPLACES the roll on the damage penetration chart, rather than happening in addition to it?

[Sir_Prometheus]

Essentially, yes.  The effect takes effect on damage, not on hit, there's just an alternative mechanism for the damage.

I wish I had a more legalistic argument, but again, GW doesn't know how to write rules, and this is my best reasoning as to what their intentions are.  It's kinda like how you can reason that vector strike ignores cover (though it's frankly stupid that it does) because GW views it as a CC attack, even though there is nothing stating that it is.  (unlike a chariot's sweeping attack, for instance)

[andalucien]

Actually I do kind of buy that.  But it's so imprecisely / inconsistently worded that I have little confidence that any given player I meet will see it the same way.

[PhoenixFire]

just heard another one

What about mixed armor saves and grav weapons? Whichever armor save is closest to the firing unit? go!

[andalucien]

I guess the closest analogy, if we're trying to follow our best guess as to the spirit of the rule, since we're sort of "rolling to wound" against the armour, is that you take Majority Armour Save of the unit?  And apply the same rules there that you do to majority toughness? 

[andalucien]

And again, HOW could this question not have come up in GW's playtesting, unless that was like 2 dudes in a room playing a couple games???

[PhoenixFire]

I guess the closest analogy, if we're trying to follow our best guess as to the spirit of the rule, since we're sort of "rolling to wound" against the armour, is that you take Majority Armour Save of the unit?  And apply the same rules there that you do to majority toughness?

majority armor save might be better, seems to be in spirit of "majority toughness" which is what you would normally deal with for determining wounding

While ICs normally have better armor saves than the unit they are attached to, i can imagine shenanigans putting an IC with no armor save closest to a grav unit shooting at them and hoping you make all your look out sirs

[Sir_Prometheus]

just heard another one

What about mixed armor saves and grav weapons? Whichever armor save is closest to the firing unit? go!

I'm pretty sure it'd have to be the majority armor save.  Again, I kinda don't want to get into a legalistic argument about it because there's no real rules on it, but majority toughness is a direct enough precedent that I feel it's hard to argue with.

I've actually been thinking about adding more drones to certain Tau suit squads to bump the majority save to 4+. 

[shwnlyns]

majority armor save seems to be the best answer here.

About the grav-cannon, why did they bother making it a salvo 3/5 when the only model in the game that can fire them have the slow and purposeful rule unless they want to include it in future codices or supplements. Something to look forward to, maybe.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Good point

[Loranus]

Still Waiting on Heavy Chainswords.

[Sam]

Thanks for your patience, everyone. Took a look through today, and here's where we stand on grav weapons:

What happens when a vehicle suffers two 6s from a grav weapon? The first hit inflicts one hull point and causes the vehicle to suffer the immobilized result. The second hit does the same thing, and since a further immobilized result causes the loss of an additional hull point, the vehicle loses three hull points in total.

What happens if grav weapons fire at a unit with mixed armour saves? Since the armour save of the target effectively replaces the comparison of strength and toughness on the chart, use the majority save value of the target unit to determine the number you need to roll. Using the value of each individual model, starting with the closest, only applies when taking saves against already allocated wounds, not for determining the number of wounds in the first place, so majority is the way to go here.

Vehicles and cover saves. What's up with that? I know, right? This is pretty much the scarab swarm conga line all over again: they're probably going to FAQ it in a month, but right now, the rules are clear. And the rules were written under the assumption that vehicles only ever suffer glancing or penetrating hits, and specify that cover saves are only taken to negate glancing or penetrating hits. Since grav weapons don't inflict either, the cover save rule ridiculously does not apply. Hide your kids, hide your wave serpents; they're grav-ing everybody out here.