Grav weapons - hull points

http://natfka.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-answer-to-grav-weapons-from-author.html#more

apparently Cruddace intended them to take two hull points. take salt, add liberally. wait for faq?

The FAQ already works for double HP removal, though.

Core Rule Book FAQ, page 7 wrote: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.

Codex: Space Marines, page 121 wrote: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 looses a single Hull Point.

Dark Vengance Mini Rule Book, page 74 wrote:Any Immobilized results suffered by an already Immobilized vehicle, or a Flier with Locked Velocity (see page 81) instead removes an additional Hull Point.

What this tells us is that only Pens and Glances can remove the first Hull Point, unless the effect specifically says it does. In the case of Grav Weapons, it explicitly says it causes both the result and the HP loss. Having gone through that, we get to the chart itself which goes on to say that duplicate results of Immobilized causes additional Hull Point loss, giving us two Hull Points stripped on the second result.

So, going through the basic order of operations presented, let's go through the Scenario:

Two Crusader Squads, each rocking a Grav Gun, see a Chaos Land Raider in front of them, and go to turn their wrath upon it. The first squad causes a hit and a result, causing the Land Raider to loose a Hull Point and become a sitting duck. The second squad then turns it's Grav Gun upon the Chaos Land Raider, and the dice gods smile as they get 2 hits and 2 results. The two results of 6, because of Graviton, immediately strip two hull points, and the looking at the damage chart and seeing that the Chaos Land Raider is already immobilized, takes another 2 Hull Points, leaving it at -1 Hull Points, and very much Wrecked.

It needs a faq.. because im still of the opinion it only take 1 hp per glance.. irregardless of immobilization effects.

Lets see if they nip this one quickly or allow it to linger forever .. a la death ray.

It's not a glance, though, it's a result. The book is explicit in what happens when that particular result it duplicated, and the gun itself is explicit in what it does when it rolls a 6 against a vehicle. Everything is right there, saying exactly what it does.

I disagree. Im not alone.. it wouldnt be such a debated issue if it was written clear. You go any forum and youll find the debate raging.

It doesnt matter to me how it ends panning out.. in terms of what the ruling is. I just want it to be clear.. and right now it isnt.

I would really like to know how it isn't. Please show me, because I see a rather straight line of logic going through the whole shebang of X does Y, Y causes Z, Z means W.

You cause a hit, roll a 6 on the Graviton rule. The Graviton rule says it removes a Hull Point and causes an Immobilized result. The Immobilized result says that if it happens more than once on a single vehicle, an additional Hull Point is lost.

If I shoot two Las Cannons at a Land Raider, and they both Hit and Pen, and they both Cause an Immobilized result, how many Hull Points are lost? 2 up front from the fact that they both caused a Pen, and a further 1 from a second Immobilized result (assuming the Land Raider was clean to start), for a total of 3.

Now look at the EXACT same scenario with Grav Cannons subbed in for Las Cannons. Both hit and each cause a result from rolling 6, so the Land Raider has lost 2 Hull Points out of the gate, and then, because both results are auto locked into Immobilized, the chart says another 1 Hull Point is lost, for a total of 3.

Show me something that says that double Immobilized doesn't do EXACTLY what it says it does in the chart. Give me a citation of why it DOESN'T work exactly as I have laid it out. I can point to page 74 of the Mini Rule Book, page 7 of it's FAQ, and page 121 of Codex: Space Marines. I have yet to see ANYONE, ANYWHERE, provide a single citation in the rules as to why double Immobilized is 2 Hull Points and not 3. I know for sure that when my Iron Clad went one on one with a Tervigon it would have loved to have some how survived a double Immobilized so that the Master of the Forge could have put his legs back together, but 3 Hull Points wrecks it. And three hull points is what any vehicle will take from a double Immobilized from clean.

I know Tom.. I understand the rationale, I've seen the debates. You don't have to get high and mighty and argumentative. Just because you see it as black as white doesn't mean it is.

There are debates going on all the major rules forums as to the intent, power level, vehicle damage chart bypass, statement of immobilation, and the ability to use cover save and invul saves that makes it a confusing weapon. It's an odd rule and they definitely didn't spell out the effects clearly.

Its causing confusion everywhere, hence it needs a faq. Will we see one? Who knows.. it won't be the first time we've left dangling in the wind.

I can understand the ambiguity and confusion regarding cover saves for vehicles and grav weapons, but by in large it's bull shit arguments like this that makes it so I can't even field my favorite unit in my codex because of "alleged ambiguity", and I rather resent that.

System Commander wrote:Lets see if they nip this one quickly or allow it to linger forever .. a la death ray.

It has rules that are perfectly clear, "starts here, goes here, kills things in between", but apparently it's entirely unusable because it has a unique and flavorful mechanic, with clear intent and simple enough rules, that has gotten even further backing in precedence in Apocalypse with a unit that can truly snipe in lines as it hits on a per model and not per unit basis. Heaven forbid that any weapon ever have a mechanic different from a Las or Plas Cannon.

There is concrete RAW support for the Grav Weapons doing 2 Hull Points per proc beyond the first, and it even has direct RAI support from the author himself.

We are smarter than this.

No one is saying you can't use grav guns or the death ray.. I'm saying I wish GW would faq these things that have different wording and intent than other weapons.. because they are unique. My only problem with the death ray comes from it being the only weapon that can alledgedly start with it's target in close combat. Grav guns have mechamnics that are unlike any other weapon as well.

Why do grav guns get to ignore cover when there is an actual ignore cover rule.. but they don't have it. Why doesn't the grav weapon say it causes a glancing hit with the added result of an immobilation from the vehicle damage chart. It's worded dumb. It definitely seems like it should be causing 3 hp damage on 2 hits.. but why does that make it the most powerful vehicle killing gun in the gaem when combined with the grav amp...and the apparent ability to ignore cover. What majority armour save does it use against mixed saves. It's a really bizarre series of events that could of been better explained with better wording.

I just want to see these things faq'd. It's for everyone's benefit to have clear rules.. not some potentially odd yet confusing ones that are unlike anything else in the game.

I cant believe I'm taking sh!t for wanting a fricking frakking faq.

its not clear because its not worded the way it should be.

I don't think anyone said you can't use death rays Tom. field them all you want. tbh, i would rather see those points put there than in other HS choices from your codex. The gun is dumb, but hey, so is sniping with a basilisk, or  baleflamer... the entire edition is about gonzo giant stupid shit doing ridiculous crap that you can't tactically do anything about. its the flavor of the week.  wait for Nids and watch them get to assault out of burrowing with a MC. or some deepstriking Flygrant with a str 10 ap2 ignores cover flamer template.

...rant aside. this thread wouldn't exist if there wasn't ambiguity in the wording. and the tone of emails should probably be toned down.

the major argument is that the grav weapon removes a hullpoint, it does NOT generate a  penetrating hit, which is alluded to as  in the wording for immobilized results as a prerequisite to taking additional hullpoint.

The fact that cruddace wants it to be 2hp is all well and good, but I'm sure Gav thorpe would have liked to RetCon the 4th ed CSM codex 6 months later if given the chance too. instead he had to live with being the most hated dex writer in the 'verse for 5 years.

There is still going to be ambiguity about it until there is a FAQ.

(ps: i think it should be 2hp for every grav hit after the first)

thing is, we probably will never see a FAQ for the graviton rule, because in their UK minds, they have very clearly laid it out and explained how it works. far as they're concerned, they're probably looking at everyone who says they don't understand like they just spoke martian. its most likely they fully intend it like how tom spelled it out step by step. i've tried looking at it from the opposed view point and i just cant see how it works their way and not the way tom describes.

as for how grav weapons would roll against mixed saves units, here's a simple fix. though all of you that like to fast roll your wounds and saves wont like it.

example:
a grav cannon fires into a crusader squad of 5 power armour, 5 scout armour models.

he rolls to hit, passes 4 of the 5.

pick the closest model in the crusader squad. lets say its a power armour. roll to wound. grav cannon passes the roll. does the guy have an invul save? no? then he's gone.

pick the next closest model. this time its 2 scout armour guys. roll to wound. pass both. we assume these dont have an invul cause the previous did not, and hey, they're scouts. they're gone.

pick the 4th model to roll a wound for. this time is power armour again. roll to wound. fail. amp re-roll fails as well. so 3 died.

it'll take a little bit longer, but there's not alot of mixed save units that pop up for this to be a huge concern. and since wounds are always allocated to the closest model first, just roll to wound vs that model's save until its dead, then goto the next model.

the result in the long game with most of the armies played locally, is if your opponent takes grav weapons, you might want to reconsider placing that HQ with the 2+ save in front of the squad to act like a shield for the squad. is this a horrible thing? not really. does it make you think more tactically? yes. and that's not a bad thing to encourage people to do in a war simulation game.

Beyond champion tanking mixed saves do indeed tend to be very rare. Heck, the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Inquisitorial Warbands, Crusader Squads, and maybe the Dark Eldar beast master pack thing? Hard to say, as I have never seen one fielded. I will be most curious to see how mixed saves for the Grav weapons are handled.

And on the topic of FAQs we've been waiting a long time for, I'm still waiting for GW to get back to me on what happens when a Barge Lord dies and gets back up (is he back on the barge, or on foot?).

I believe Mike has it correct on mixed saves.

Tom, I THINK you are probably correct.... But it's worded weird. It needs a faq.

I cannot seriously think anyone thinks it denies cover or invul.

For Tom and other newer ppl, here is a reference, a story if you will. When the previous Daemon codex came out there was a minor/major kerfuffle.... Cuz codex:daemonhunters laid out exactly what counted as a daemon, literally a list. People argued units from Codex:chaos daemon DID NOT COUNT as a daemon because they were no longer on the list. GW didn't faq it, because well, they frankly couldn't believe people would be so obtuse. Took between 6 months and a year to get FAQd.

Similarly, the previous Blood Angel codex (WD), didn't list access points for there rhinos. Obvious typo right? Nope, people literally insisted it was RAW, you can't disembark.

Basically sometimes stuff doesn't get faqd when it should because GW can't believe we don't understand what they meant.

You know what I don't?

Something I've noticed is that those who fight hardest for a weapon or rule  to work the way they want (usually better than what the opposite opinion is arguing), also happen to use that weapon or rule.
Funny huh?

Why am I the only one that catches crap for questioning it when obviously other people would like a faq as well?

I must be on Tom's sh!t list .. or maybe its the death ray thing?

To clarify.. again. I like the death ray.. i think its useful and pretty cool. I just dont like that it can start on a model locked in combat and then go out. Its pinpoint accuracy meaning your always guranteed to hit one model at str 10.. any model you want. I just questioning its ability to start on a model locked in combat. I find it odd since no other weapon in the game does that.. unless theres one i dont know about?

And before you go off on another tangent explaining every rule and raw and rai and everything else.. i know the arguments and i know the rules, i still think it needs a faq so its cut and dry for everyone.

What is so wrong about wanting a faq Tom?

As for the mixed saves.. it seems logical and the way to do it.. but why do you even need a paragraph explanation. New players.. how do they hope to figure itnout.  The rule is neat.. but they worded everything about it so stupidly.. its irritating.

I do think the way the rule is worded now.. thats the most logical way to work things out.. and im all for logic. I question the intent only based on its unbelievable vehicle killing ability.. reroll pens, glances to death.. noncover saves? Going wuth the information we ha e.. wed have to rule it that way... BUT it was a sloppy rule explanation and they need to address and fix it. Someone do that stats.. is there anything better in the game at killing a landraider sitting behind an aegis line?

My biggest bone to pick with both this and the Death Ray is the abundance of "I think", "I feel", "maybe if", "implies this", etc etc with no solid citations (a big thing in my upbringing: you have a point, prove it).  And after the events of this thread it rather felt unwelcome for me to bring my favorite unit, even as more an more things showed up to either out shine it (Helturkey turret mounted Baleflamer, measured from the base comes to mind) or are rather baneful to its existence (Riptide being the scariest interceptor platform I've ever seen).

While Grav Weapons DO have things that very much need an FAQ, such as the cover saves for vehicles (and by extension, possible invulnerable saves as well) and mixed armor saves, the double hull points are spelled out perfectly already.  Even arguments like "an additional Hull Point implies the first lost from the Pen result" are weak, because there still is an initial Hull Point lost in the Graviton rule itself.  I've looked through the "raging debates" on Dakka Dakka, and the proponents against double Immobilized double Hull Points are doing the semantic equivalent to faffing about.  I find it utterly baffling how this "debate" is able to rage on so, when those arguing against it seem to have no rules ground to stand on, but rather are going "no way, that's OP! a GW book would never have something OP in it, so that must not be the intention!"

I have to say, it feels to me that FAQing the two Hull Point result is like GW giving a reply about left handed Bolters, in that it already works and shouldn't need an FAQ.

So you'd like to see a faq.. just like me !! I dont understand whats happening here.. were on the same page.

I do seem to be getting pissier by the minute though.

Here's my stance on the subject sans extra drama.

Cover/Invulns for vehicles: FAQ please
Resolution for mixed armor saves: FAQ please
Double Immobile, Double Hull Points: redundant, currently covered in rules.

Paz wrote:Something I've noticed is that those who fight hardest for a weapon or rule  to work the way they want (usually better than what the opposite opinion is arguing), also happen to use that weapon or rule.
Funny huh?

Are you insinuating people allow personal bias to effect their judgement?! mind=blown  

All kidding aside I think that the FAQ detailing the extra loss of a HP when suffering and effect that causes an immobilized result and removes a hullpoint is the clearest ruling we have on the subject. That doesn't mean that we cannot house rule it or w/e, but my interpretation follows Tom's logic steps.

Did anyone other than Mike purchase any of the devastator Centurions? I can't help but think they are another extremely rock/paper/scissors unit and didn't like them. (anything worth that many points without and invul save of any kind is rather rubbish imo with how many things swiss cheese 2+ armor these days) Admittedly between them, Riptides, Hellturkeys, and Wave Serpents the meta is in a really strange place now. You now have two armies that are really good at killing lots of unprotected infantry (Hellturkeys/Wave Serpents) and two armies that rock stuff with a 2+ save (Riptides/Grav weapons). Will be interesting to see how the next codex go.

Aegwymourn wrote: Will be interesting to see how the next codex go.

Probably tunneling Carnifexes that can charge off the Deep Strike.

Rhaevyn wrote:http://natfka.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-answer-to-grav-weapons-from-author.html#more

apparently Cruddace intended them to take two hull points.  take salt, add liberally. wait for faq?

Seems pretty simple to me. Grav guns get no result on a 1-5, but on a 6, we say that it got a pen result of Immobilization.

So if you grav a pristine vehicle, it loses 1 HP and is now immobalized
If you grav an immobalized vehicle it loses 2 HP (as per the Immobalised cumulative effect)

So, 2 grav results on a pristine vehicle equal immobalized plus 3 HP damage, killing anything short of Land Raiders and Battle Wagons.

Yeah.. umm.. we've been over that quite a few times now. Did you really just reply to the first post or did you read the whole thread?

I did actually reply to the first post,... I only saw the whole thread afterwards...durr