Ignores cover.

[Gulsnick]

So while i was actually reading through the rules i noticed " ignores cover " only applies to wounds . here in my local group they use it for vehicles to , is this right? is there a FAQ somewhere that clears this up?

[DWest]

There has not been an official FAQ for the Ignores Cover vs. Vehicles situation yet. Your best bet is to invoke "The Most Important Rule" (BRB pg. 4; basically says pick your preferred answer or roll-off to decide), and pick the interpretation which works best for your group.

[Gulsnick]

the only problem i have against it working vs vehicles , is that it makes tau eldar better than they already are , since they seem to have the most ignores cover rules

[DrLove42]

Most people seem to apply it to working on removing cover on vehicles

And yes Tau are broken.

[Nabterayl]

But yes, you have picked up on something that others have as well. I think the consensus, at least around here, is that:

The RAW is unambiguous that Ignores Cover doesn't work against vehicles.
It's pretty hard to figure out why an attack that can ferret out a grot in a bramble can't ferret out a tank behind a wall.

[Tyrendian]

furthermore, the very name of the special rule can serve as another argument... I mean it´s called "Ignores Cover" and not "Sometimes Ignores Cover But Only When You Shoot At Something That Can Duck" [seems like a decent enough distinction for that purpose... only vehicle I can really see "ducking" would be a Triarch Stalker/Defiler/Soulgrinder, and that only by lowering their body between the legs...] or whatever...

[Anggul]

I have yet to meet anyone who wants to play it as if it didn't work on vehicles. It's obviously supposed to, and it would make no sense for it not to. That tank is not less likely to be hit than that guardsman.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

RAW in the BRB PG75 "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"
That to me says that ignores cover most definitely ignores obscured.

[daboarder]

^ Everyone always forgets this

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Just been debating it over on ATT because some daft fella kept trying to insist that cover from 25%+ for vehicles and jink stacked. Honestly it was depressing.

[Gleipnir]

The term "rolling to wound" is a general term used in the 6th edition game rules applied to both vehicles and non vehicles(the term was also used in 5th edition ruleset as well), non-vehicles roll to wound on the wound table, vehicles roll for Armor Penetration to wound, reference sections detailing the steps you resolve things illustrate this in back of the rulebook. Ignores Cover, as it implies ignores all forms of cover saves vehicular and non vehicular.

[DarkLink]

So... poison "wounds" vehicles on a 4+?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

So... poison "wounds" vehicles on a 4+?

Nice :)

[Nabterayl]

^ Everyone always forgets this
I don't forget it; I just don't find it persuasive. The argument is, "If A must be done exactly as if B were C, then C is treated exactly as B." And that's simply untrue.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Only whilst one is doing A, as we are in this case.

[daboarder]

I don't forget it; I just don't find it persuasive. The argument is, "If A must be done exactly as if B were C, then C is treated exactly as B." And that's simply untrue.

Jesus christ it ****s me to tears every time someone makes that claim

25+ years of precedent, GW faqs, erata, and clarifications let us know,

COUNTS AS, AS IF or LIKE = IS!

[Asuryan]

RAW in the BRB PG75 "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"
That to me says that ignores cover most definitely ignores obscured.

This just says that vehicles take cover saves, which i think every one agrees with.


Jesus christ it ****s me to tears every time someone makes that claim

25+ years of precedent, GW faqs, erata, and clarifications let us know,

COUNTS AS, AS IF or LIKE = IS!

Page 38 BRB

Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by a weapon with the Ignores Cover special rule.

I see no As, As if or Like. The only times i can think armor penetrations work like wounds are for taking cover saves, as above, invulnerable saves as FAQ, and for determining who won combat.

Now i also believe that vehicles can't take cover saves for penetrations/glances from said weapons with Ignore Cover, but i do see why people would want to take them.

[daboarder]

page 38 brb

cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by a weapon with the ignores cover special rule.

I see no as, as if or like. The only times i can think armor penetrations work like wounds are for taking cover saves, as above, invulnerable saves as faq, and for determining who won combat.

Now i also believe that vehicles can't take cover saves for penetrations/glances from said weapons with ignore cover, but i do see why people would want to take them.

brb:75

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

edit: its right there in the rulebook nabertayls argument is not only ridiculous its the worst kind of rules twisting.

[Gleipnir]

So... poison "wounds" vehicles on a 4+?

Considering the rule for Poisoned in the BRB specifically states in the rule Poisoned "has no effect on against vehicles" um nope, why add that to the special rule description, simple because they already used the terminology in multiple areas of the rules as "The roll to wound" even when referring to vehicles, where they differentiate is what table or method the roll to wound is resolved (pg. 427).

Yes the "Roll to Wound" vs vehicles is determined via the same to wound die pools separated by weapon strength, and special rules and additionally based on armor facing, and is resolved via Armor Penetration result or other effects as appropriate, but as far as the rules are concerned its still considered a roll to wound(even though vehicles don't have a Wound rating the rules still refer to the roll determining Armor Penetration as the same thing, and have since 5th edition)

[Pssyche]

The easiest way to resolve this would be to change the wording of the Ignores Cover Special Rule to...

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

But we all know that's not likely to happen.

[Nabterayl]

Only whilst one is doing A, as we are in this case.
I was going to ask you to draw that out for me, but I think I see it now. Let me know if this is the argument you're making:

Page 75 says (I posit you say) "if a vehicle is obscured and takes a glancing or penetrating hit, then it is treated as having been wounded for all purposes related to cover saves."

Page 38 in turn says (I posit you saying further) "if a model has been wounded by a weapon with the Ignores Cover special rule, it cannot take cover saves against wounds caused by that weapon."

Is that the form of your argument? If so, I do find that persuasive.

Obviously I agree that "exactly as if" is GW speak for an identity. I cannot believe daboarder doesn't know that about me by now.

[Gleipnir]

The easiest way to resolve this would be to change the wording of the Ignores Cover Special Rule to...

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

But we all know that's not likely to happen.

Changing the wording isn't necessary, once you understand the term wounds is a universal game term for an attack that damages or has an effect on a model, vehicular and non vehicular, how those wounds are resolved is the only difference but that doesn't change the fact that a glancing hit or penetrating hit are still wounds in the rules.

[Nabterayl]

the term wounds is a universal game term for an attack that damages or has an effect on a model, vehicular and non vehicular
Agree with what Badrukk said. Do not agree with this.

[DarkLink]

Considering the rule for Poisoned in the BRB specifically states in the rule Poisoned "has no effect on against vehicles" um nope, why add that to the special rule description, simple because they already used the terminology in multiple areas of the rules as "The roll to wound" even when referring to vehicles, where they differentiate is what table or method the roll to wound is resolved (pg. 427).


I was being flippant. The point is, no, "to wound" is not universal. It makes a distinction between wounding and penetrating in the rules.

[Gleipnir]

I was being flippant. The point is, no, "to wound" is not universal. It makes a distinction between wounding and penetrating in the rules.

And yet that distinction only takes place "after" the "Roll to Wound", which would make the roll to wound a universal rule and the Weapon STR vs Toughness table and Armor Penetration are seperate distinctions within it. if you can point me to a table or reference chart that specifically contradicts the one in the reference section of the back of the rule book, I'd love to see it, otherwise Armor Penetration is simply a vehicular subset within the mechanic of "Rolling to Wound", similarly the game mechanics for unsaved wounds is the process by which you make saving throws, are you now going to assert that Vehicles don't make invulnerable saves because the rules for doing so are labeled Unsaved Wounds not Unsaved Armor Penetrations? I never saw anything that says ignore all previous rules as they pertain to rolling to wound only a separate method of resolving those rolls.

The terms rolling to wound and unsaved wounds are most definitely used universally.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I was going to ask you to draw that out for me, but I think I see it now. Let me know if this is the argument you're making:

Page 75 says (I posit you say) "if a vehicle is obscured and takes a glancing or penetrating hit, then it is treated as having been wounded for all purposes related to cover saves."

Page 38 in turn says (I posit you saying further) "if a model has been wounded by a weapon with the Ignores Cover special rule, it cannot take cover saves against wounds caused by that weapon."

Is that the form of your argument? If so, I do find that persuasive.

Obviously I agree that "exactly as if" is GW speak for an identity. I cannot believe daboarder doesn't know that about me by now.

You make my argument quite persuasively. That's exactly my point, I'm not saying wounds and penetrations are ALWAYS interchangeable because they're clearly not. But in this case they clearly are.

[DarkLink]

I would agree, that's what the "exactly as if it were wounded" part does. Because of that clause, in this specific case, wounded and penetration are interchangeable.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Bingo.
Although of course there are very few places where wounds caused and pen/glance hits caused aren't used fairly interchangeably when it comes to saves etc.

[Gleipnir]

And then there are other areas where the wording is so atrocious as to be garbage......

Does Preferred Enemy allow me to reroll 1's for Armor Penetration?

Does Instant Death apply to models without a Toughness profile

Does Concussion apply to Walkers

[Kaptain Badrukk]

No, but you still re-roll 1s to hit.
Yes, if you have the instant death rule and that model has a wounds characteristic,
not that I can think of a model with that combination off the top of my head.
No, because you can't WOUND a walker.

Those rules are all really clear, the word "wound" or even a comparison to the "to wound" roll doesn't turn up anywhere in the section regarding vehicles or walkers. However in places like the above discussion where rules carry over it is pretty explicit.

[Chris Copeland]

Dear God... I'm pretty sure that this level of rules-lawyering would get laughed right out of my local meta...

[Kaptain Badrukk]

TBH I'm normally a "rule of cool" guy myself but I do get very annoyed by people who can't read their own rulebook.