Ignores Cover VS Vehicles

[Learn2Eel]

Ignores Cover as described in the rulebook, page 38;

"Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule."

Is this clear cut or has it been FAQ'd - like the whole invulnerable saves previously only applying to models that suffer wounds, but now glancing/penetrating hits as well - ?
Cheers, only just recently noticed it.
Obviously, stuff that says "ignores Jink saves" or some older rules (like the Hive Guard) would get around this somewhat.
Just curious as Tau are becoming increasingly popular where I play, and I'm too tired to remember if this has been FAQ'd or it is as it is. Again, thanks.

It is prudent to note that Vector Strike says "cover saves may not be taken against these hits" rather than "these hits have the Ignores Cover special rule".

[chicop76]

Ignores Cover as described in the rulebook, page 38;

"Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule."

Is this clear cut or has it been FAQ'd - like the whole invulnerable saves previously only applying to models that suffer wounds, but now glancing/penetrating hits as well - ?
Cheers, only just recently noticed it.
Obviously, stuff that says "ignores Jink saves" or some older rules (like the Hive Guard) would get around this somewhat.
Just curious as Tau are becoming increasingly popular where I play, and I'm too tired to remember if this has been FAQ'd or it is as it is. Again, thanks.

It is prudent to note that Vector Strike says "cover saves may not be taken against these hits" rather than "these hits have the Ignores Cover special rule".

I'm alittle lost. Ignore cover works vs jink, shrouding, cover, and stealth
Ignore jink only works on jink saves, so if a tau tank have a +1 cover save and the Tau moved which whould normally have a +4 save now only have +6

If in area terrain the vehicle will still get a +5 save and if it have a cammo net a +4 save.

Ignore shrounding and stealth only works on bonuses. For example since Tau wargear gives the tank +1 cover and not stealth the ignore stealth would not work and the tank still get +1 cover. The same with camo cloaks.

However if you have vespids in ruins you can ignore the +1 stealth they get for being in ruins.

Potatoe, Apple, Orange, Pinapple it's all the same thing.

[Learn2Eel]

Has there been an FAQ to clarify that Ignores Cover works against vehicles as well? By the rulebook, it only works against wounds caused, not glancing and penetrating hits.

I know how the rest of it works.

[Nabterayl]

There's no FAQ on point that I'm aware of. I think you have a valid observation.

I can see the counter-argument that vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a wood and so on)" (p. 75). But I'm inclined to say that, on balance, that is the inferior argument. The rule I just quoted seems to me to be telling us to use the same procedure for saving (i.e., determine how good the cover save is based on what the vehicle is obscured by, roll a d6, and tally a success if the d6 roll is equal to or greater than the value of the cover save) as is used for Wounds, not telling us to pretend that the vehicle has suffered a Wound.

[chicop76]

Has there been an FAQ to clarify that Ignores Cover works against vehicles as well? By the rulebook, it only works against wounds caused, not glancing and penetrating hits.

I know how the rest of it works.

Ok I see now. You mean cover, cover saves or jink saves.

[Tynskel]

There's no FAQ on point that I'm aware of. I think you have a valid observation.

I can see the counter-argument that vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a wood and so on)" (p. 75). But I'm inclined to say that, on balance, that is the inferior argument. The rule I just quoted seems to me to be telling us to use the same procedure for saving (i.e., determine how good the cover save is based on what the vehicle is obscured by, roll a d6, and tally a success if the d6 roll is equal to or greater than the value of the cover save) as is used for Wounds, not telling us to pretend that the vehicle has suffered a Wound.

oi. There's nothing to see here.
Ignores Cover means exactly that: Ignores Cover.

Vehicles cannot 'magically' all of the sudden hide in cover vs flamer throwers, because they are a 'tank'.

[Bitrider]

Ignores Cover as described in the rulebook, page 38;

"Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule."

Is this clear cut or has it been FAQ'd - like the whole invulnerable saves previously only applying to models that suffer wounds, but now glancing/penetrating hits as well - ?
Cheers, only just recently noticed it.
Obviously, stuff that says "ignores Jink saves" or some older rules (like the Hive Guard) would get around this somewhat.
Just curious as Tau are becoming increasingly popular where I play, and I'm too tired to remember if this has been FAQ'd or it is as it is. Again, thanks.

It is prudent to note that Vector Strike says "cover saves may not be taken against these hits" rather than "these hits have the Ignores Cover special rule".

Nothing to see here folks..move along...:D

You are correct in your reading Mr. Eel! You must have wounds to be affected by this rule.

[Magpie]

I'd go with the pretty clear statement of intent that Nabterayl has outlined from Page 75.

The procedure is linked to wounding and therefor to Ignores Cover

[chicop76]

I'd go with the pretty clear statement of intent that Nabterayl has outlined from Page 75.

The procedure is linked to wounding and therefor to Ignores Cover

Should use this as an example of rules laywering. This one is better than the ran shoot assault one.

[Nabterayl]

Prediction: if this gets addressed, it will be via erratum and not via FAQ.

[Magpie]

Should use this as an example of rules laywering. This one is better than the ran shoot assault one.

What do you mean by that?

[chicop76]

What do you mean by that?

I doubt it's the op intent, but in a way it's trying to use raw to justify you can't deny cover to vehicles.

[Nabterayl]

Because nobody observes rules technicalities just because they're interesting, or asks questions just because they want to know the answer. As everybody knows, nobody on the Internet asks a question or makes an observation except for illicit personal gain.

[chicop76]

Because nobody observes rules technicalities just because they're interesting, or asks questions just because they want to know the answer. As everybody knows, nobody on the Internet asks a question or makes an observation except for illicit personal gain.

That's why I said I doubt, instead of him being a ____. The way he asked it seemed it came up and he was clarifying. However this could be looked up trying to take advantage in game due to poor wording. This situation is a good example of rules lawering. The intent would be to justify if vehicles are immune to ignore cover. Clearly it wasn't his intent. If it was than spot on rules lawyering.

[Quaade]

Has there been an FAQ to clarify that Ignores Cover works against vehicles as well? By the rulebook, it only works against wounds caused, not glancing and penetrating hits.

I know how the rest of it works.

There hasn't been an FAQ on it, however, the rule of common sense says that ignore cover also works on penetrating and glancing hits since it's the exact same wording for invulnerable saves and there are plenty of vehicles who has an invulnerable save which they can take against penetrating and glancing hits.

Unless of course all daemon, dark eldar, Bjorn the Fellhanded and a few forgeworld playing people have gotten it wrong all along.

[RGilbert26]

Erm ignores cover means exactly what it means, so vehicles are not exempt - a glance or pen hit is essentially a wound if you're going to be picky. If you fire a S6 flamer at the rear of a tank that would normally get a cover save, because the flamer has the ignores cover rule it removes the cover save.

Not exactly hard to work out.

[Nabterayl]

There hasn't been an FAQ on it, however, the rule of common sense says that ignore cover also works on penetrating and glancing hits since it's the exact same wording for invulnerable saves and there are plenty of vehicles who has an invulnerable save which they can take against penetrating and glancing hits.

Unless of course all daemon, dark eldar, Bjorn the Fellhanded and a few forgeworld playing people have gotten it wrong all along.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The wording doesn't seem all that similar to me. Page 17 says that invulnerable saves "may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit." Page 75 says, "If the target [vehicle] 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."

[Learn2Eel]

Erm ignores cover means exactly what it means, so vehicles are not exempt - a glance or pen hit is essentially a wound if you're going to be picky. If you fire a S6 flamer at the rear of a tank that would normally get a cover save, because the flamer has the ignores cover rule it removes the cover save.

Not exactly hard to work out.

Going by GW's ruleset, it is actually. The special rule Ignores Cover specifically states "wounds". Things that ignore cover saves, as in Vector Strikes, yeah sure as they don't use the Ignores Cover special rule, but the actual Ignores Cover special rule, from a RAW perspective, the answer is no. This is why I thought I would ask to see if it has been FAQ'd similar to how invulnerable saves were (the rulebook previously said invulnerable saves were taken against wounds with no mention of glancing or penetrating hits until it was FAQ'd).

Cheers all for the discussion by the way. Going to have to give one of my regular opponents the bad news about Vector Strikes from Heldrakes (he hates them with a passion).

[chicop76]

Going by GW's ruleset, it is actually. The special rule Ignores Cover specifically states "wounds". Things that ignore cover saves, as in Vector Strikes, yeah sure as they don't use the Ignores Cover special rule, but the actual Ignores Cover special rule, from a RAW perspective, the answer is no. This is why I thought I would ask to see if it has been FAQ'd similar to how invulnerable saves were (the rulebook previously said invulnerable saves were taken against wounds with no mention of glancing or penetrating hits until it was FAQ'd).

Cheers all for the discussion by the way. Going to have to give one of my regular opponents the bad news about Vector Strikes from Heldrakes (he hates them with a passion).


Helldrakes ignore cover saves with vector strikes. It's covered in the FAQ. Well vector strikes ignoring cover is.

[Learn2Eel]

Yeah I know, that's why I used it as an example. I think there is a reason the Vector Strike FAQ specifically says "cover saves are not permitted" as opposed to "these have the Ignores Cover special rule". It gives credence to the idea that Ignores Cover weapons do indeed only cover wounds.

[Quaade]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The wording doesn't seem all that similar to me. Page 17 says that invulnerable saves "may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit." Page 75 says, "If the target [vehicle] 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."
Thank you for demonstrating my point, "...exactly like a non vehicle mode would against a wound." When can't a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound? When the attack has Ignore Cover, so if it takes it like a non-vehicle would against a wound, it is bound by the same restrictions.

[Caitsidhe]

Thank you for demonstrating my point, "...exactly like a non vehicle mode would against a wound." When can't a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound? When the attack has Ignore Cover, so if it takes it like a non-vehicle would against a wound, it is bound by the same restrictions.

It doesn't prove your point. It only proves that they need to add this to the FAQ since currently vehicles cannot use the rule but Invulnerable saves can be used.

[Caitsidhe]

Yeah I know, that's why I used it as an example. I think there is a reason the Vector Strike FAQ specifically says "cover saves are not permitted" as opposed to "these have the Ignores Cover special rule". It gives credence to the idea that Ignores Cover weapons do indeed only cover wounds.

I suspect you are correct due to the wording as well. What it means is that a Tau mosnter using his special rule of ignoring cover cannot deny a cover save to vehicles only the troops. :D

[Daemonette666]

That's why I said I doubt, instead of him being a ____. The way he asked it seemed it came up and he was clarifying. However this could be looked up trying to take advantage in game due to poor wording. This situation is a good example of rules lawering. The intent would be to justify if vehicles are immune to ignore cover. Clearly it wasn't his intent. If it was than spot on rules lawyering.

This question has been asked on another website wargamer.au as well. The reason it was asked there, was because it was ruled in an international tournament held in England this year, that the ignores cover USR does not work on vehicles. The person wanted to find out how others interpreted the rule, and how they thought it should be played, and to discuss it between themselves. Maybe in the hope that GW will errata it.

[Nabterayl]

I must admit I wouldn't be sorry to see an erratum on this subject. Why Ignores Cover should be specific to Wounds is beyond me.

[Caitsidhe]

I must admit I wouldn't be sorry to see an erratum on this subject. Why Ignores Cover should be specific to Wounds is beyond me.

I could think of a few "fluffy" reasons but not many in the realm of hard rules tech. I'd rather they not do an erratum as vehicles already have a hard enough time these days. Let them have the bone. :) It won't affect me personally, however, as it doesn't come up often enough for me to care.

[Daemonette666]

Normally such a rule would not effect my army, as most of the vehicles have the Daemon rule, so get a 5+ invul save. However I have been tinkering with a variant of the old rhino rush with Rhinos, land raiders, backed up by Defilers, Heldrakes, Forge Fiends and mauler fiends. I am also looking at a Traitor IG based army using CSM allies. The rule would be to my benefit then, but my enemy would also get the benefit for their hover tanks, etc.

Who knows, maybe GW will errata it when they bring out the Errata and FAQ for the new Eldar codex.

[Turner]

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/Turner1279/IAgree.jpg (http://s149.photobucket.com/user/Turner1279/media/IAgree.jpg.html)






http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/Turner1279/waveserpent_zps001be077.gif (http://s149.photobucket.com/user/Turner1279/media/waveserpent_zps001be077.gif.html)



Congratulations.

[GravesDisease]

Ignores Cover as described in the rulebook, page 38;

"Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule."


If you wanted to take a Jink save you would do it after the opponent has rolled to hit - not after they roll to penetrate. The rule in which you quoted is for wounds on non-vehicle models, so if you were to be all RAW about it then you would need to find a more appropriate clause. What you have above cannot be applied to the discussion in this case as it is the difference between saving against hits and saving against damage (damage being wounds or penetrating hits[penetrating hits being glanced or penetrated results]).

[Aramel]

Well the rule for invulnerable saves also only mentions wounds, not hull points, does this mean that vehicles can't benefit from invul saves? Given the number of vehicles that specifically have invulnerable saves, it seems pretty clear to have been an omission in both rules.

[Urtyfang]

If you wanted to take a Jink save you would do it after the opponent has rolled to hit - not after they roll to penetrate. The rule in which you quoted is for wounds on non-vehicle models, so if you were to be all RAW about it then you would need to find a more appropriate clause. What you have above cannot be applied to the discussion in this case as it is the difference between saving against hits and saving against damage (damage being wounds or penetrating hits[penetrating hits being glanced or penetrated results]).

You declare you're going to take jink saves after the to hit roll, (opponent rolls for pens) you make the saves against any glancing or penetrating hits.

Glancing & penetrating hits are equivocated quite often throughout the rules that you can say they're the same thing. so ignores cover would also ignore the cover saves for vehicles.

[Magpie]

The rule in which you quoted is for wounds on non-vehicle models, so if you were to be all RAW about it then you would need to find a more appropriate clause.

The clause that seals it for me and solves all problems in relation to vehicle and cover is "the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover". The rules for cover saves for vehicles are not rules in isolation but rather exceptions to the basic rules for cover.

Which makes it pretty clear that "wound" equates to "Glance/Penetrate" in the case of vehicles.

[Turner]

The clause that seals it for me and solves all problems in relation to vehicle and cover is "the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover". The rules for cover saves for vehicles are not rules in isolation but rather exceptions to the basic rules for cover.

Which makes it pretty clear that "wound" equates to "Glance/Penetrate" in the case of vehicles.


Interesting theory, I'm going to need a judge for this one.



Step 1:
(this one is hard)
READ THE RULES!

Step 2:
READ THE FAQs

Step 3:
...

Step 4:
Profit!

Step 1: *reads rules*
Step 2: *reads FAQ*

"Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves
Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are
different to armour saves because they may always be taken
whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,
suffers a penetrating or glancing hit – the Armour Piercing
value of attacking weapons has no effect upon an Invulnerable
save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores
all armour saves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”."

Step 3: ....
Step 4: Profit!


Looks like we're still... not ignoring cover when it comes to vehicles because that would be against the rules.

[dr.insanotron]

I still don't see how any of this changes the fact that vehicles have to take cover saves exactly like models with wounds and if a vehicle takes a cover save when a model with wounds would not be able to they are not taking them exactly the same. This is what the rule says

[Hippie]

The problem is anything that has the USR(Universal Special Rule) in the BRB on pg 38 follows the following:

Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the ignores cover special rule.

Vector strike has been FAQ'd that "No cover saves can be taken". If it is the same then why didn't they just give Vector strike the USR?

[dr.insanotron]

I think I see why people are making a mistake

If a vehicle takes a cover save vat a weapon with the ignore cover USR its not breaking the rules for IGNORES COVER.

You are however breaking the rules for vehicles taking cover saves.

Also vector strike is worded differently because its not a shooting attack

[Hippie]

BRB pg 74

VEHICLES AND COVER_OBSCURED TARGETS
Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry.... The difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover.
Pretty clear cover for vehicles is indeed different than it is for other models.

Then it goes on the explain those exceptions. In the 3rd exception they tell you how a vehicle makes a cover save and what that means to the Glance/Pen but nowhere does it state 'To wound rolls are equal to armour penetration rolls' which is your argument.

Just like the invul FAQ(that invul saves work for armour pen rolls) I'm afraid GW needs to errata the 'ignores cover' USR if they intend it to effect armour penetration rolls.

[Magpie]

Page 76 under the rules for Assault
"counting each glancing hit as 1 Wound, and each penetrating hit as 2 Wounds."

Shows that wounds are considered analogous with Glance/Pen.

[dr.insanotron]

@ Hippie

Actually not true- p.75, the second bullet point, says that vehicles take cover saves against glancing/penetrating hits in "exactly the same way" that other models take saves against wounds. Thus, if you cannot take a cover save against a wound, you cannot take a cover save against the glance/pen, Q.E.D.

[Magpie]

@ Hippie

Actually not true- p.75, the second bullet point, says that vehicles take cover saves against glancing/penetrating hits in "exactly the same way" that other models take saves against wounds. Thus, if you cannot take a cover save against a wound, you cannot take a cover save against the glance/pen, Q.E.D.

That pretty much seals it I'd reckon

[Hippie]

@ Hippie

Actually not true- p.75, the second bullet point, says that vehicles take cover saves against glancing/penetrating hits in "exactly the same way" that other models take saves against wounds. Thus, if you cannot take a cover save against a wound, you cannot take a cover save against the glance/pen, Q.E.D.

That is the 3rd bullet point(3rd exception to the rules for cover saves for vehicles) that I just referred to. It tells you how a vehicle makes a cover save and what effect it has on HPs and that if the save is made no rolls on Damage table occur.

You aren't looking at the USR "ignores cover" which clearly only effects "to wound" rolls. Because a vehicle takes a saving throw 'like' other models do against wounds doesn't change the fact that "To Wound" is NOT equal to "To Pen".

If this was as cut and dry as you think there wouldn't be Tournament FAQs dealing with it as well as discussions on almost every major forum.

[Daemonette666]

@ Hippie

Actually not true- p.75, the second bullet point, says that vehicles take cover saves against glancing/penetrating hits in "exactly the same way" that other models take saves against wounds. Thus, if you cannot take a cover save against a wound, you cannot take a cover save against the glance/pen, Q.E.D.

You just know that someone will argue that the line "must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non vehicle model would do against a wound" is used to show how a vehicles cover save, although different because it can not get a cover save simply for being in area terrain, can still get a cover save if obscured by the intervening types and that the amount of Cover save is dependent upon the terrain type obscuring Line of Sight.

They will argue that it does not say "exactly the same way", and that it is used only to show how the cover save varies depending on what type of terrain is obscuring the vehicle from the firer. They will point out that the special rule ignores cover is just that - a special rule with set limits, and that the words "exactly like a non vehicle model would do against a wound" under the vehicle obscured section uses the word LIKE not the SAME, so it is different, but similar.

I have always thought that a weapon that ignores cover, or has that the special rule ignores cover cancels the vehicles cover save it gets from being obscured, but others will argue till they are blue in the face about it.