Sunday, 6 October 2013

The Grav-Gun rules argument.

You know what sucks? RAW screw ups. Grav weapons are one of the greatest inventions by GW.........but they are also the worst. Could they really be as broken as the internet cave trolls are crying about? Yeah.....they are.

"Two-Immobilsed results = 3 HP"

There is plenty of debate raging around the forums at the moment. The problem that many people have with the "3HP" result is the question of timing. Is my vehicle simultaneously immobilised at the same time? Thus only suffering a single result and 2 HP's? No. It is not simultaneous. If you rolled up two weapon destroyed results from some Lascannon shots, would you be able to destroy the same weapon twice? No. The attack itself is simultaneous, but the results are resolved consecutively. Would you take one save against 20 wounds? It's simultaneous right? No. Go home.

Here is another argument. "as it is not a glancing or penetrating hit, the Vehicle Damage table cannot be used." What? What else would we use? There is no rolling for armour penetration, but we must use the definition of "Immobilised" as per the rulebook.

Here is what it boils down to:
1. I am not currently Immobilised.
2. I suffer two 6's.
3. First result makes me immobilised. 
4. The second result still applies an immobilisation result. Am I currently immobilised from shot 1? Yes. 
5. Take an additional HP off the vehicle.
6. I am now a wrecked vehicle.

Verdict: Two 6's take 3 Hull Point's off a vehicle.

-- It's a hard line and, as usual, we will need an FAQ from GW to clarify (good luck with that) --

"You don't get a cover save on a vehicle vs Grav"

That's right. You don't.

1. I am sitting behind a ruin.
2. Grav guns shoots at me. It IS NOT a glancing or penetrating hit.
3. What is required for a vehicle to take a cover save? "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it."
4. Am I viable for a cover save? No.

The problem is that no one can clearly clarify EXACTLY how to define the attack. 

-- Just to jump in here. I allow cover saves to be taken. I think it's ridiculous but In a RAW environment, careful reading is everything --

Is this fair? No bloody way. So I don't want to hear anyone say "but it would just have the Ignores Cover USR." Please remember that the reason why this debate even exists is because GW didn't realise the issue existed. It is a by-product of the RAW world that competitive players live in. All we need to look at, objectively, is what the rules say and how it applies to this ONE situation.


As per most rules. Clarify everything with your Tournament Organiser. Also, don't expect to win the Good Sports award. You better be in it to Win it, or be content with coming mid-range, being given numerous degrading titles and lose friends. Good luck with that.


  1. I just want to point out this article:

    1. Cheers mate, saw that last week myself. It will be good if they can get an FAQ out quickly about this.

  2. CrAzY424, love the rage in this post. Quite entertaining. Thanks.

  3. Nice post, I like the rage-but-fact attitude.

    Though this doesn't make sense:
    "So I don't want to hear anyone say 'but it would just have the Ignores Cover USR.' "

    Ignores Cover is irrelevant for vehicles anyway, as you that rule only ignores cover saves for wounds, not armor penetration.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...