Dear Games Workshop

[Turner]

Dear Games Workshop,
Please change the Special Rule "Ignores Cover" to ignore cover. It was, and still is, silly when my Scout Sentinel made it's cover save against a penetrating hit from the enemy heavy flamer.


Thank you,
Turner

[heretic marine]

1: I don't think they will acknowledge this 2: they can't change it now:( and 3: that's helping you is it not:confused:.

I have to take another look at templates I forgot the ignored cover in 5th

[ElectricPaladin]

Wait, what's the problem?

[Chris*ta]

Huh? :confused:

[Xenith]

It was silly when my Scout Sentinel made it's cover save against a penetrating hit from the enemy heavy flamer. Nope, you're just cheating/haven't read the rules properly/are TFG.

[Turner]

Wait, what's the problem?

My Scout Sentinel made it's cover save (in ruins mind you) against a pen from a heavy flamer. Grant it to make things worse the enemy failed the charge because of the whole charging through cover but the flamer template has the special rule called "Ignores Cover" which ironically, did not ignore cover.... I wish Games Workshop would change the special rule "Ignores Cover" to actually ignore cover.

[OrksOrksOrks]

Is this just because it says "Ignores wounds"? I think the meaning to everyone on that is pretty clear.

[Turner]

Nope, you're just cheating/haven't read the rules properly/are TFG.

Interesting, maybe you should read "Ignores Cover". Page 38 if you need help.

[Turner]

Is this just because it says "Ignores wounds"? I think the meaning to everyone on that is pretty clear.

Yes, however a very slippery slope as I'm sure we have all found... The whole RAW vs RAI.

[eldargal]

It does need an errata, but it's hardly the end of the world. Houserule it if it is a problem, wait for GW to do it if it isn't.

Also instead of writing a post on an internet forum it would be more productive writing to GW.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

This reminds me of that 15+ page thread about whether or not the Axe Mortalis is an Axe. :P

Does the precise wording of Ignore Cover not apply to vehicles? Yes! Is it bleedin' obvious that it should? Yes! Don't get that worried about the precise wording, it's just plastic space mans.

[Night System]

Its games workshop rules, there are always going to be holes in the rules. Mostly they are easily fixable by logical reasoning. Like before it was FAQd, it wasn't stated if a grounded FMC Still needed 6s to hit it for shooting. But it is so obvious it actually hurts my brain with the idea that people would play it differently. Don't be afraid to use common sense.

[Kyban]

Dang it Turner! You were using Ogryns again weren't you? :p

[Chris*ta]

Also instead of writing a post on an internet forum it would be more productive writing to GW.

But then how will the whole world know how important an issue it is? :p

[Moros]

Either you're being silly here or you're just stupid... all templates have the ignores cover rule, and ignores cover means you can't take a cover save... I really don't understand what you're even doing with this

[Chris*ta]

Either you're being silly here or you're just stupid... all templates have the ignores cover rule, and ignores cover means you can't take a cover save... I really don't understand what you're even doing with this

Please refer to my previous post.

[Chris*ta]

This reminds me of that 15+ page thread about whether or not the Axe Mortalis is an Axe. :P

No, at least there there was an argument that could be made for The Axe is not an axe.

Here, here there's really not.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

No, at least there there was an argument that could be made for The Axe is not an axe.

Here, here there's really not.Oh, yeah, I get that - I was undecided, but RAW was leaning towards "Unusual Power Weapon". Just the whole concept behind "Is this Axe an Axe?" seemed kinda funny :P

Whether or not "Ignores Cover" allows a weapon to Ignore Cover hits the same funny bone, for me.

[Chris*ta]

I'm starting to feel like, after the ruling on the Axe Mortalis, if you have an issue with a rule, you ask "what is the result that GW would assume a 14 year old would take from this?" you end up with the right answer.

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not :confused:

[Durendin]

I'm still trying to get my head around why you think it was appropriate to take a cover save against a weapon that ignores cover. :rolleyes:

[eldargal]

Because the Ignores Cover rule specifies that you don't get a cover save against wounds, not penetrating hits.

[Houghten]

Except that vehicles take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound. (page 75)

Hell, the vehicle squadron rules even talk about "unsaved Wounds."

[Durendin]

Hell, the vehicle squadron rules even talk about "unsaved Wounds."

I'm no rules lawyer but I'd call that precedent!

[eldargal]

Like I said, it isn't really an issue and if it is for you you can houserule it. Doesn't change the fact it should be erratad to make it absolutely clear that it ignores cover against all hits, not just wounds.

[Durendin]

Doesn't change the fact it should be erratad to make it absolutely clear that it ignores cover against all hits, not just wounds.

Along with having to house-rule that your Land Speeders do or don't have wounds either?

Not really an issue for me as I seldom get much of a game in these days but I'd be less than impressed wasting my time with someone who demands such shenanigans when a clear intention gets nit-picked for a petty advantage.

People like that I see as more of an issue than the interpretation of a rule!

[eldargal]

The land speeder thing is completely irrelevent. Wounds are a unit characteristic present on statlines, vehicles do not have a wound characteristic. Therefore rules that refer specifically to wounds do not necessarily apply to vehicles. The Ignore Cover save specifies wounds, that GW sometimes refer to vehicles having wounds is simply inconsistent and has no bearing on whether or not the Ignore Cover rule should be erratad for clarity.

Also the vehicle squadron rule does not say squadrons have wounds:

As vehicle squadrons don't have Wounds or Toughness, we have to allocate hits to them slightly differently to other, more conventional units. To do this, allocate individual hits, rather than individual wounds, one at a time, to the closest model in the squadron.
In other words, wounds don't apply to vehicles, hits do. The Ignore Cover rule says it applies specifically to wounds, not hits. Hence the need for an errata.

This whole issue is really stupid. It is obvious what Ignore Cover means to do, it just doesn't say it properly. Houserule it (ie just do what everyone else is doing and having templates ignore cover full stop). If you still think it is an issue, write to GW.

[pauljc]

Also, at the risk of sounding provocative, it's really a dick move to say that vehicles get cover saves against flamers and such. Especially if you're playing against friends... The fluff - and intention - of the rule is such that gouts of fire, gas, goo, cottage cheese, or whatever simply envelopes the location, getting through rubble, gun slits, cracks, etc etc..

To say that, just because the exact wording isn't anally specific, is just lame and not in the spirit of the game. ;)

[I108]

I agree that some things are pretty ridiculous. I was at a tournmanent, and people there decided to nitpick different rules, such as Inquistor Coteazs "I've been expecting you" not working when inside his warbands dedicated transport... Like that makes any sense!

[Durendin]

"I've been expecting you" not working when inside his warbands dedicated transport... Like that makes any sense!

I'd just counter that with "you were so expected the good Inquisitor decided to wait in a tank so that he could let you have it with the Lascannons!

[Joe Fixit]

I can see Turners point, it's this kind of thing that can spoil the flow of a game. Personally amongst friends it's not a real issue, as has been said you can house rule it or roll a dice. However we have all played those WAAC players who will argue the toss with you over something such as this. As Eldargal says contacting GW in regards to this is the quickest sure fire way to get it looked at.

[Kirsten]

I'm still trying to get my head around why you think it was appropriate to take a cover save against a weapon that ignores cover. :rolleyes:

exactly, you do not get cover saves against flamers, there is no issue here.

[Joe Fixit]

Oops wrong thread
Removed and reposted, the wonders of posting on forums with a smart phone :)

[Anggul]

Why do people do things like this? The RAW police aren't going to kick down the door and arrest everyone if you do what a rule is obviously meant to do. Just say before all games/agree with the other player: 'We're doing the right thing and not taking cover saves on vehicles against things which ignore cover right?' If the rest of the group/other guy says no, then either find someone else or just make sure everyone plays it as such from the beginning.

Also what Houghten said: "Except that vehicles take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound. (page 75)"

[RGilbert26]

Im so glad i don't go to the same place as the OP as id really have to resist the urge to slap him in the face with a trout. Good thing my local store doesn't have any players who are as anal about rules as the OP.

Flamers remove cover saves from units that are hit by them and just because it says wounds does NOT mean vehicles are ignored (i believe penetrating hits against walkers still count as wounds in 6th?).

[Kirsten]

Im so glad i don't go to the same place as the OP as id really have to resist the urge to slap him in the face with a trout.

exactly, if someone tried that on me I would take my hardback rulebook and beat them with it until they stopped moving.