First I would like to just put it out there that I am still new to this Blogging thing and apologize if my posting seems haphazard and more than a little unrefined, I'm learning and hope to continue to improve. Now as another note this post will contain some profanity so if this offends you, please do not read further.
I hate Rules Lawyers
This moment of hate was brought to you by the comments and beliefs of some people that I read over on Faeit 212 about grav weapons. Would like to make it clear I have no issue with the article or its author, but what it brought up and the rules lawyering nitpickyness of some people trying to read so far into the rules that their heads are so far up their asses you can see the shit coming out of their throat. In summary some are arguing that the new grav weapons ignore cover, based on no rules whatsoever, because of the wording of the vehicle damage section and when a player roles cover saves for their vehicles. Basically they are arguing that since you roll your cover save after a penetrating or glancing hit is scored. Since grav weapons do not cause those (not explicitly stated but implied IMO) you do not get a cover save. One, what the fuck? How the fuck did you come up with that? The rules that are in question do not talk about what qualifies a vehicle for a cover save. That is unsurprisingly in the section that talks about cover saves (obscuring) for vehicles. The final paragraph explains that if a vehicle is obscured, it rolls its save after a glancing or penetrating hit is scored. And I would like to emphasize one word AFTER, as in the order in which you do things. This is too fucking easy and that this has somehow been convoluted and twisted to allow someone to take advantage of the fact the the grav weapon does not specify that it causes a glancing or penetrating hit. This is retarded. The section that is in question is there to qualify the order in which to do your rolls, i.e. you roll to hit, then to pen, then cover. It in no way hints or mentions that a penetrating hit or glancing hit is required. And further more, there is a special rule that already exists called ignores cover, guess what, the grav weapon doesn't have it. This is just an example of the reasons I despise rule lawyers, they twist semantics to their ends to gain an advantage. If a rule is confusing (note this isn't) then either roll off or side on the more lenient ruling. Its called sportsmanship and being a good member of a communal hobby.
Some rules are confusing and until FAQ'd or cleared up there will be multiple beliefs on how it should go. I believe if the rule is that confusing, see what makes sense. This can involve fluffyness as well, as in the case of cover, we are told to imagine that the impeding objects interfere with the accuracy and ability of the shooter and that the cover save can represent the shooter not even firing due to having no available shot. Some may say hold on, but I rolled for shooting with my BS, that takes into account his skill. Well yes and no, since cover doesn't have a negative modifier to represent the harder shot (interesting idea), its all rolled up into your cover save, at once representing the harder shot as well as the physical object stopping the shot. And this is where the above claim makes no sense, if a vehicle is behind cover, it is harder to hit which is represented in a cover save. That should be the end of it. If this really becomes a big issue I do hope it is in an FAQ in the future, but until then vehicles will get cover saves until the time it is explicitly stated that they don't.
That is enough of that. On the weapons themselves I think they are a cool niche weapon that some players will love and take a lot and others will stick to their tried and true. It certainly isn't game breaking. I know my buddy is loving his new codex and I can't wait to play against his army. Will see if he can best my guardsmen finally.