Grav weapons

I don't have my SM codex copy yet. What do grav weapons wound models with no armour saves on?

Thanks.

Random prediction is 6+
But it is a random prediction.

Thor665 wrote:

Random prediction is 6+
But it is a random prediction.

That's my gut feeling too.

Wyches vs Centurions looks like a good match-up then.

Minimum to wound roll of a 6 if no armour. Great for our squishy troops

De and other no save codexies (lookin at you demons)probably make plasma still the go to weapon. Grav weapons are not that scary when de have 12 skimmers and max 5+ sv troops and infantry.

Plasma is also probably overall better versus vehicles as well.
That said, Grav weapons don't finger burn your troops, which is a plus.

Meh, I think with the current Tau/Eldar meta they won't see too much use compared to Plasma unless the Marine lists start being more omnipresent, and then I'd expect a rise in them to compensate.

Aye, pretty much the only reason to take them is to have some real kack in the sleeve against Riptides and Broadsides. Those are the most cost effecient targets for those weapons.

Grav weapons have their place. They are good on bikes as bikes are relentless.  So they will be great at taking out MC's like the riptide and wraithknight.  So 6 shots for two bikes.

And the dev centurions fire 5 shots each with grav amps. Makibg them great against vehicles.  15 shots for a unit of three. 10 hits. With grab amps they reroll to wound and armour pen.  When a grave weapon rolls a 6 to pen a vehicle they automatically remove a hull point and immobilize it.   When a vehicle is immobilized and suffers additional immobilised results they instead lose an additional hull point.

But yeah I still think plasma will me used more. But I won't be supprised to see some grab weapons as well

Something to consider. Do grav weapons allow cover saves to vehicles as they are not actually rolling for armour pen? The rulebook states that vehicles suffering a pen/glance can get a cover save if obscured. Grave weapons are not rolling for armour pen.

Also does this mean that since grab weapons don't roll on the damage table that they don't remove additional hull points from vehicles after the first immobilised result has occurred?

4a. Please refrain from double posting. You may "bump" a post every 48hrs if you feel you are not getting responses. Double posts in project logs are acceptable. /Your friendly mod SS

colinsherlow wrote:

Something to consider.  Do grav weapons allow cover saves to vehicles as they are not actually rolling for armour pen? The rulebook states that vehicles suffering a pen/glance can get a cover save if obscured. Grave weapons are not rolling for armour pen.

Also does this mean that since grab weapons don't roll on the damage table that they don't remove additional hull points from vehicles after the first immobilised result has occurred?

My guess is that saves are supposed to be allowed but under the current wording they are not. In which case, we'll need to wait for a FAQ. Could be tomorrow, could be next year!

Marines just had a small FAQ released today. Nothing on grav weapons yet. Hopefully eldar and marines get one this year

I'm hoping they'll get a decent FAQ out for Tau, Eldar and Marines plus the lingering questions from older 6e Codexes and the main rulebook in the not too distant future. There's no point producing codexes at this pace if you can't keep the FAQ's up to date too.

The BoLS comments section is going nuts on this topic. It seems pretty clear cut to me to be honest. No cover saves and you suffer an extra HP for every immobilised result after the first. Whether that is RAI or not I have no idea. Time will tell. It does make Grav weapons exceptionally nasty though.

I think they should get coversaves (I mean it is a shooting attack... yeah RAW and all but still)

But why is there an arguement about getting 2 HPs for another hit after imobilzation??? thats just people being stupid. Its clear as day that every Immobilzation after the first is an extra hp...

people trying to word things for their own gain... I swear...

Isn't the 2 HP one point for the Grav weapon as listed and then +1 for the 2nd immobilization = 2 HP for an additional hit?

its 1 HP and imobilized from the first hit

A second hit is 1 HP and another imobilized result, which then goes to another HP

so second hit = 2HP

It drives me nuts as well. It is crazy how irrational people are on the interweb. Even rules that are clearly written get torn to shred by people who want said rule to be different. I am for the yes you get a cover save and yes to removing extra hull points

also with how GW wants to throw a unique word onto every special rule... you would think if they ignore cover, they would have the ingore cover USR on the gun profile...

I'd go so far as to say that the BRB needs to be amended to say that any attack that does not have the Ignores Cover rule automatically allows a cover save - just for the avoidance of doubt. Of course, it would need to be worded a bit tighter than that to get past the rules lawyers!

Until this gets FAQed and I attend a tournament with a clarification that does not allow cover saves against grav weapons, I'll insist that ignore cover rule does not work on vehicle cover saves, period.

If they try to troll me, I'll troll them.

Finn wrote:

Until this gets FAQed and I attend a tournament with a clarification that does not allow cover saves against grav weapons, I'll insist that ignore cover rule does not work on vehicle cover saves, period.

If they try to troll me, I'll troll them.

That's been discussed before and the short answer is that Ignores Cover does work on vehicle cover saves as, for the purposes of cover saves, vehicles treat glancing/penetrating hits exactly the same as non-vehicles treat wounds. Hence anything that denies a non-vehicle a cover save also denies it to vehicles. There's a thread about it here.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Finn wrote:

Until this gets FAQed and I attend a tournament with a clarification that does not allow cover saves against grav weapons, I'll insist that ignore cover rule does not work on vehicle cover saves, period.

If they try to troll me, I'll troll them.

That's been discussed before and the short answer is that Ignores Cover does work on vehicle cover saves as, for the purposes of cover saves, vehicles treat glancing/penetrating hits exactly the same as non-vehicles treat wounds. Hence anything that denies a non-vehicle a cover save also denies it to vehicles. There's a thread about it here.

Yup. But it still is not clear and will not be until GW FAQs the topic. Having said that, stating that ignore cover does not affect vehicle cover saves is not sensible.

I'm happy to discuss it further but let's take it to the other thread please so as not to derail this one.

The whole issue on grav guns not allowing cover saves is probably due to poor wording. They tried to avoid inelegant "on a roll of 6, the vehicle suffers a penetrating hit with a fixed immobilised effect". Current wording is neat, but problematic. Good intentions with effects as usual.

And if someone tells me that it's fluffy for grav weapons to ignore vehicle cover, the same can be said about haywire blasters. It's impossible for a vehicle to hide from EMP.

I suppose it will be FAQed, but we will have to wait months for an official clarification. This is the same case as deathwing assault or inv saves on vehicles. Until it happens, it's up to the players' agreement.