Grav weapons, discuss

[Sir_Prometheus]

Besides which, I think he is pretty correct.

He's either correct or he's not.

Well, that, by itself, simply isn't true, especially when talking about GW rules.

And he's not.

Internet wide, you're actually in a minority opinion on that.  Whether you want to go by obvious RAI (I do), view this immobilized+hull point as an alternate form of penetrating hit (I do), or if you want to draw a somewhat interpreted distinction between effects that work "on hit" vs "on damage" (my favorite).

Regardless, it's certainly not certain, and while we may all have our own interpretations, saying, "No you are 100 % wrong because reasons" is just kinda......well it's ignorant, actually.  Ignorant of all the reasons why that's NOT true.

Also, you were a jerk without purpose. 

[Loranus]

Also, you were a jerk without purpose. 

See comments like this is why a reasonable rules thread goes bad. Seriously a ruling for Battlegrounds has been made and it will likely affect 1 or 2 tournaments before the FAQ comes out with an official ruling on the matter. Let us all be Mature adults about it and just drop it before another thread on here becomes toxic.

[Benjamin]

Regardless, it's certainly not certain, and while we may all have our own interpretations, saying, "No you are 100 % wrong because reasons" is just kinda......well it's ignorant, actually.  Ignorant of all the reasons why that's NOT true.

Saying you are 100% wrong because of the rules is not ignorant of the rules.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Regardless, it's certainly not certain, and while we may all have our own interpretations, saying, "No you are 100 % wrong because reasons" is just kinda......well it's ignorant, actually.  Ignorant of all the reasons why that's NOT true.

Saying you are 100% wrong because of the rules is not ignorant of the rules.

Ben, saying that everyone that disagrees with you is either stupid or ill-informed is not really a valid way to go about things. 

Also, y'know, you're wrong.  So there's that. 

[keithb]

Guys, Guys.


I am correct.

[Sir_Prometheus]

you are.

[Benjamin]

Ben, saying that everyone that disagrees with you is either stupid or ill-informed is not really a valid way to go about things. 

Well, I know that. So then, what should I call you?

[Mad Dok Rob]

And this is why everyone should play Orks....

you silly marine players with your new fanged technology is a universe with supposedly stagnant technological development.

Come on, even the Eldar admit we are the pinnacle of culture.

"The Orks are the pinnacle of creation. For them, the great struggle is won. They have evolved a society which knows no stress or angst. Who are we to judge them? We Eldar who have failed, or the Humans, on the road to ruin in their turn. And why? Because we sought answers to questions that an Ork wouldn't even bother to ask. We see a culture that is strong and despise it as crude."
- From Culture vs. Kultur: Thoughts on Orkish Society by Uthan the Perverse, a controversial Eldar philosopher.

Now can we not put down our arguments about high tech weapons and just bash each other in the head like nice civilized beings.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

[PhoenixFire]

So while not an official FAQ it seems someone got a hold of the codex author and asked him the question.

Thats right, one of our readers was able to get a hold of a few moments with the author of the Space Marine codex to ask the one question that has been digging at us for week's now. This answer is good enough for me.


Do Grav Weapons cause an extra hull point when they hit an already immobilized vehicle?

via Chris, and of course thanks Robin Cruddace for answering this burning question.
Hi Natfka,
 I’ve just got back from games day UK, where I spoke to Robin Cruddace about the question you raised over grav weapons immobilising a vehicle more than once. He confirmed that if a vehicle is immobilised more than once by a grav weapon rolling a 6, then it *will* loose an additional hull point for being immobilised while already immobilised, just as if you were rolling normally on the vehicle damage table. I asked him to see if he can get this in the official FAQ, so hopefully we’ll see that appear sometime soon.

Cheers!
Chris

Chase, please point Sam at this when you get a chance since i know he doesn't frequent the boards

thanks!

[andalucien]

This is consistent with Sam's ruling.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Yes, that one actually seemed obvious to me....that's what two immobilized results does, causes an extra hull point.

I would have been much more interested to hear him say something about the cover save issue. 

[Grimwulfe]

The better question to ask is do the vehicles get cover or invuln saves because that is still up in the air pending how you read the rules.  For now though I think Sam's ruling is fair and works

[Sir_Prometheus]

The same logic would apply to both cover saves and invo saves. 

[Grimwulfe]

Regardless the question should be asked.

[Typhus]

Question asked to Robin Cruddace, the author of the book this past weekend at UK Games Day

Do Grav Weapons cause an extra hull point when they hit an already immobilized vehicle?

via Chris, and of course thanks Robin Cruddace for answering this burning question.
Hi Natfka,
 I’ve just got back from games day UK, where I spoke to Robin Cruddace about the question you raised over grav weapons immobilising a vehicle more than once. He confirmed that if a vehicle is immobilised more than once by a grav weapon rolling a 6, then it *will* loose an additional hull point for being immobilised while already immobilised, just as if you were rolling normally on the vehicle damage table. I asked him to see if he can get this in the official FAQ, so hopefully we’ll see that appear sometime soon.