Graviton Weapons and Vehicle Cover Saves

A Treatise on Graviton Weapons and Vehicle Cover Saves.

Spoiler "..units in cover get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them."

This includes Vehicles.

With the introduction of Graviton weapons in the new Space Marine Codex there seems to be much confusion regarding the resolution of graviton hits vs obscured vehicles.  Specifically, people want to argue that:

"Vehicles do not get cover saves versus gravity guns because gravity guns do not roll for armor penetration and vehicles are only allowed to take cover saves versus glancing or penetrating hits."  

Now, to understand why this is patently incorrect, we must first know what the rule actually says.  In regards to resolving hits versus vehicles, the "Graviton" special rules states:

"Graviton: ...(this part is about non vehicle models) 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 loses a single Hull Point."

Now the wording here is actually quite important, in that, read correctly, the entire false argument resolves itself.  The rule actually states in it's own verbiage, that you are rolling for armor penetration.  Notice, it says:
"roll a D6 for each hit instead of rolling for armour penetration as normal" 
The key words in this sentence are "as normal"..  The graviton special rule does not state that you do not roll for armor penetration.  It says you do not roll for it as normal.  Instead it gives you an alternative method of determining penetrating hits.  On a 0-5 you do not.  On a 6, you do with an immobilized result.   Can a glance cause an immobilized result normally?  No.  Can a failed penetration roll take off a hull point and immobilize a vehicle?  No.  The only result that can do so is a penetrating hit which is what you get when you roll a 6.  You simply rolled a d6 instead of rolling for penetration as normal.  You have still rolled for penetration, but the only result is a penetrating hit or a misss with this alternative method.  Hence, as the result is in fact a penetrating hit, the arguement fails.

EDIT - I just realized there is precedence for my argument here since people have already tried to argue that the "as normal" verbiage doesn't actually mean you are rolling for penetrationg still.  It does in fact mean exactly that, and as evidence I give you the Haywire rule:

"HAYWIRE
Haywire weapons send out powerful electromagnetic pulses that disable electrical wiring and all kinds of mechanical systems.  When a weapon with this special rule hits a vehicle, roll a D6 to  determine the effect rather than rolling Armour Penetration normally:"
D6         Result
1            No effect
2-5        Glancing hit
6           Penetrating hit"

As you can see, GW has used this same basic wording in the past to imply an alternative method for rolling penetration is used.  Granted the results table actually says Penetrating hit, but the important thing is that when they say to do something one way, rather than doing it normally, they are in fact saying it is an alternative method of accomplishing the given task as I stated above.

Also, as I can't find anyplace else to include Tims point below, the fact that an imobilized vehicle loses an additional hull point for an imobilized result, is only included on the Vehicle Damage Table in the Basic Rule Book which is only rolled on for Penetrating hits when resolving them normally.  If we were to conclude that Graviton weapons do not cause pentetrating hits, than we also can't imply that they lose 2 hull points for the second imobilized result, as that table, and that result are only used for resolving penetrating hits normally, the Graviton weapon has a different table that doesn't mention an extra hull point.. Hence, you don't get to combine the two different tables.

However, none of that actually matters, because units get a cover save (refer to spoiler above):

"regardless of what's firing at them." BRB. Page 18, first paragraph.  In case you don't have your book handy, that paragraph reads in it's entirety:

"COVERSAVES
Often, you'll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, also known as being in cover.  Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Cover saving throws are not affected by the AP value of an attacking weapon, so units in cover get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them."
Now, this entire page is important.  Page 18 lays down all of the basic rules for getting cover saves.  It breaks out those rules into specific sections, most importantly:

Determining Cover Saves:

Types of Cover Saves:

And in it's own breakout box is the most important entry to this discussion, the rules for:

Going to Ground

Now, why is this important?  Because the rules for vehicles cover saves are based on the rules on page 18 but they are further clarified on BRB Page 74-75.  These clarifications are prefaced by the following entry:

"VEHICLES AND COVER - OBSCURED TARGETS
Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry - their sheer size and bulk mean they can not take advantage of cover as well as smaller, more agile troops.  They can, however, position themselves in such a way as to make it harder for the enemy to hit them in a vulnerable location. The difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover:"

Now, this paragraph sets the stage for the true failing in the proposed argument above.  This paragraph stipulates that a vehicle follows the basic rules for taking cover saves modified by:
"the following exception to the normal rules for cover."

Now what does an exception to a rule mean?  Well, first it means we have to have an existing rule to follow, and that we then have a situation where we change that existing rule (in this case when the unit taking a cover save is a vehicle).

So, we already know that our existing rules for cover are explained on page 18.  Now we have listed on page 74 and 75 exactly 3, THREE exceptions to those rules listed in the form of bullet points.  See the quote above where it says "the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover"?  Well these 3 bullet points are those exceptions.  Lets see what rules we are making exception for:

"• Atleast25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or hull down'). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle.. (truncated for brevity) "

So our first exception seems to deal with the rules from page 18 that fall under:

Determining Cover Saves:

What has actually changed here?  What is the exception?  Well in short were an infantry model gets a cover save if it is 25% obscured from view to a single model in the firing unit, a vehicle has to be 25% obscured in a given facing from the MAJORITY of all models firing at that facing that are able to damage it.  So one model having an obscured view isn't enough to get cover, a vehicle needs a majority of models in a given facing that are able to damage it to have obscured views before it gets cover.  So, the exception works similar to the base rule, with a minor caveat that does not affect a graviton weapon in any way. 

Next Exception:

"• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area terrain. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

Alright, looks like our second exception is going to cover the next sub-heading in the cover save rules:

Types of Cover

Specifically area terrain which is listed in the chart at the top right of page 18, then mentioned in the break out box on the bottom of 19 but is specifically explained on page 91 as follows:

"Area terrain is always difficult terrain. Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured. Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1."

What is the difference in our exception to the types of cover rule?  That vehicles do not get a cover save simply by being in area terrain.  They must still be 25% obscured as described in the previous exception.  That's it.  The entire rest of the "Types of cover" entry on page 18 also applies to vehicles with that one exception.  Vehicles get the same cover save depending on terrain types that other models get, be it a 6+ from razor wire (admitidly that would have to be some very thick razor wire) to a 3+ for being obscured by a fortification.  Still nothing in these exceptions that denies a vehicle a cover save. 

What is our third and final exception then?

"• Obviously, vehicles cannot Goto Ground, voluntarily or otherwise. 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 of 5+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. If a special rule or a piece of wargear makes a vehicle obscured even if in the open, this is a 5+ cover save,unless specified otherwise in the codex."

Now, as you are all aware, this is the entry that everyone has been mistakenly quoting as the reason vehicles don't get a cover save against graviton weapons, but I ask you this:

What rule is this exception too?

We've already addressed the first two sub-headings of the Cover Save rules, IN ORDER mind you.  So we've addressed  "Determining Cover saves"..  We've addressed "Tpes of terrain".. The final sub-heading under the basic cover save rules that we need to make an exception for is:

GOING TO GROUND

"What?" you might ask.. These exception aren't just a collection of random new rules, but are actually exceptions to specific existing rules, listed in the same order they are presented on page 18?.. YES!!  That is exactly what I'm telling you.   The third exception, starts out specifically addressing the issue of GOING TO GROUND.  That is all that is covered in the third exception.  The rules as they pertain to vehicles GOING TO GROUND. 

What does it say about a vehicle going to ground?  IT CAN'T.  Honest, go re-read it right now, I'll wait for you to catch up.  

Done?  Good.  If you honestly read the third exception, you see that it explains that a vehicle can't go to ground.  It states that if a vehicle is already obscured that it MUST take a save versus glancing and penetrating hits just like an infantry model would against a wound using the same cover save the infantry model would get for the terrain in question, but without the benefit of going to ground, so no +1 or +2 if in area terrain, it just gets it's normal cover save.  Since the vehicle can't go to ground, if it does not currently have a cover save, it can't gain one like infantry can for going to ground in the open.. BUT, it can get one from any wargear that would make it obscured..  Great. 

So, after reading the third exception, which specifically addresses the topic of vehicles going to ground, we discover the verbiage that everyone has latched onto out of context to make the argument that Vehicles don't get cover saves.   The fact that it mentions glancing and penetrating hits.. Only it doesn't matter because the rule that is being clarified is weather or not the vehicle can go to ground.   It can't..  Furthermore the reference to glancing and penetrating hits is meaningless anyway.

Why?  Because the rules are permissive.  You can't do something unless they say you can right?  Well, when do the rules say we can take a cover save?  We've already determined that the cover save rules for vehicles are not in and of themselves the entire rule, but rather they are exceptions which simply change part of the existing rules for cover saves listed on page 18.

What is the first and most important rule established on rule 18 as they relate to this discussion?  It's the closing sentence of that first paragraph:

"units in cover get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them." 

This is the permission portion of the cover rules that we are interested in.  We are hereby granted permission to take cover saves no matter what weapon shoots at us.

Lets take a look at the three exception listed above.  I'm not going to relist them, just take a moment to consider them on your own.  Each of the three exceptions addresses one of the first 3 sections of rules for cover saves, and thus, apparently, are the only rules that are changed for vehicles.  You'll notice that further down on page 18 and 19 there are some other sub-headings.. Focus Fire, maximum save and so on, yet none of our exceptions address those.. Apparently they don't change.  If we look at the sections that the exceptions DO change, they all come after the opening paragraph, and not a single one of them PROHIBITS us from taking cover saves regardless of what is firing at our vehicle.

The first addresses how a vehicle determines weather or not it gets a cover save.

The second describes briefly that vehicles aren't automatically obscured in area terrain, but doesn't touch the rest of that section at all.  All the cover values remain untouched and unmentioned in the vehicle cover rules themselves, we have to use the basic cover save rules in their entirety, and then simply modifiy them as required

And the Third and final exception simply covers weather or not a vehicle can go to ground. 

What did we decide needed to exist in order for their to be an exception?  An existing rule to change.  What rule does the third bullet point then change?  It says vehicles can't go to ground. 

Do any of these rules say a vehicle CANT take a cover save against any weapon regardless of what it is?  NO.  That is a permission established at the head of the cover save section, and not changed by any of the exceptions.  Even taken out of context, bullet point 3 simply states you HAVE TO take the cover save versus glancing and penetrating hits.. No where does it say you can't take other saves that are allowed.   Perhaps in their infinite wisdom, GW forsaw that they would eventually introduce weapons that didn't specifically cause glancing or penetrating hits, and in that infinite wisdom granted us permission to take cover saves against them without having to mention them by name?

Honestly, if the graviton weapons were meant to deny a cover save to vehicles, rather than rely on a poorly worded and confusing section of the basic rule book, taken out of context which doesn't even apply to normal cover saves, just going to ground, why wouldn't GW have simply stated:

"This weapon has the "Ignores cover" special rule versus Vehicles." ?

There is already an existing USR that would do in one sentence, undeniably, irrefutably, exactly what people are relying on multiple pages of the BRB to exploit out of it.. 

Also, I've heard it suggested that it ignores cover because it's a gravity well and the vehicle is so much heavier than infantry.. Yet, it has NO EFFECT on buildings.. How could it be that it's unreasonable strength is based on the weight of the vehicle and yet it doesn't completely annihilate a building based on it's mass?  And why does it not affect MC by denying cover saves based on their mass?.. No I'm sorry but that just doesn't cut it either.

I really feel at this point that I am flogging a dead horse.  I hope, that you have read this treatise with an open mind, and considered my points objectively and based on their merits and set aside any preconceived notions you had when you started reading it.  Hey, I have a white scars army just like everyone else, but honestly, Gravity guns are already powerful enough, we don't need to cheat the rules to make them even better.

Please, if you still disagree with my position in this regard after reading my thoughts on the matter, leave me a comment and explain your position.  I'm really at a loss as to how anyone can honestly believe this ridiculous argument.

Given that I've quoted a portion of the BRB I feel obligated to point out that all the rules outlined above, are the property of Games Workshop.  I feel that I have used them under the guidelines of Fair use, that I have not infringed on any copy right according to those guidelines.