Ignores Cover nil against vehicles?

So something interesting popped up in my newsfeed last night about markerlights and the ignores cover USR:

40KUK wrote:

Ok big reality check with tau. Markerlights do not get rid of cover against vehicles!!! This dramatically reduces effectiveness of units like long strike and makes vehicles a good way to go against the tau!

Mark Pocock wrote:

Ignores cover USR says "Cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by weapons with this special rule". Vehicles dont suffer wounds only pens or glances. Look to the rending USR for further proof, "A to wound roll of 6 .... is resolved at ap2", been faqed to say that rolling to pen of a 6 is not ap2 only to wound. Looking through the other USR's with BJ have shown that most of the things with "suffers a wound" does not include vehicles (i.e soul blaze, shred, etc. Tank hunters specially call out pens and glances.

Thoughts?

Wave Serpent hype just become a joke =)

This has been discussed several times on the forum. I recommend you use the search function first, before creating duplicate topics.

Does Ignore Cover USR prevent Jink saves?

On a serious note it's a load of poppycock. Its like how our flicker fields didn't work because invulnerable saves only work against wounds (only recently FAQed by GW). It's your usual bad GW rule writing, they will fix it eventually.

Also pointing to page 75 of the rule book suggests otherwise.

Quote :

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 themselves, are lost and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table.

So if a unit can't take a cover save against a wound, then I would say it can't take a cover save against a glanceing/penetrating hit as the cover save works "exactly like a non-vehicle model would against a wound".

That's my take anyway, that and common sense, which is sourly needed in this hobby.

Yeah, anyone trying to argue this is being a power-playing expletive. That said, it's never made sense that 'Ignores Cover' weapons ignore Jink saves. Ignores Cover weapons represent the ammunition rolling and curling around shelter, getting the people hiding behind it. Jinking isn't using cover, it's dodging the shot entirely. It's very silly that a Sonic Blaster or Blastmaster shot cacan apparently home in on an extremely fast-moving object. The same goes for Night Fighting. Ignores Cover weapons can apparently see in the dark. Dodging should really be an invulnerable save like with Flickerfields, which are doing exactly the same thing (making the shot miss) but are an invulnerable save because you can indeed dodge a gout of fire etc.

Personally I think it makes sense, if you see something out of the corner of your eye at night and fire a flamethrouwer at it or some form of fragmentation weapon in the rough direction chances are you will hit. So for night fight it makes sense, that cover ignoring weapons help you. AS for jink it could be argued either way, it would sure help raven wing if jink worked against hell drakes.

Flamer is fair enough, but not long-ranged stuff.

And yeah, I see no reason why the bikers wouldn't see the thing flying over and start dodging and weaving to avoid the gout of flame and the claws.

Quote :

Thoughts?

It doesnt feel like outright rules lawering honestly since there is precedence for differentiating between wounds and penetrating results regarding other rules. I hope this turns out to be the case here as well. That said I doubt it will and I wont play it as such until GW does clarify. Good to know though, ill bring this up locally for some friendly debate.