Have I (and everyone I know) been playing "ignores cover saves" wrong?

A while back, I used to take my flickerfield saves against failed dangerous terrain tests. Other players pointed out that I was unable to due to the wording of the FF and invunerable saves preventing wounds, and vehicles have no wounds.

So, lets take a look at "no cover saves".

pg 38 of the rulebook...

Quote :

"Cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by weapons with the no cover save special rule."

WOUNDS taken.

Well, it seems it may have come full circle. Since vehicles do not take wounds, the ignores cover rule does not prevent them from taking the saves.

Oh, and it gets better.

HAND TO HAND:
PAGE 26:

Quote :

models do not get cover saves against wounds suffered from close combat attacks

Again, no wounds.

Now, to be fair, i do not think this was the intent, though it is certainly the rules. I did not think the INTENT was to deny my vehicles FF saves before, but even the FAQ came out saying we did not get FF saves versus dangerous terrain! I mean, really!

So... last edition, they did not let me make saves... should I use their own rules and arguments against them this edition? I sure would love me some jink saves against vector strikes, hand to hand attacks and the new fangled eldar waveserpent weapons!

Firstly, Flickerfields give invulnerable saves, not cover saves, and you can take them against Dangerous Terrain tests. From the Dark Eldar FAQ:

Quote :

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

From the rulebook FAQ:

Quote :

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”.

From the rulebook itself, page 75:

Quote :

Obviously, vehicles cannot Go to Ground, voluntarily or otherwise. 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

Ok. as I stated, this was "earlier", I/E 5th edition. Even the FAQ came out and said we did not get FF saves vs terrain tests.
Now, of course, it has changed.  my point was weather or not to use the same arguments they did LAST EDITION to our detriment THIS EDITION to our benefit.

In no way was I saying we do not get FF saves vs terrain presently. Sorry if it was unclear.

Well, page 75 clearly says that vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" so that idea won't really work.

this isnt even a discussion on RAW versus RAI, but one of common sense. You know that ignore cover means all coversaves. Just because you dont "wound" a vehicle, its common sense to know that you dont get coversaves against a weapon that does that. Im sorry but it just makes you look like an ass for trying to put it forward, even if it was used against you before. I would say be the bigger man and just let it go.

This thread has cropped up several times already... Please use the search function in future.

Does Ignore Cover USR prevent Jink saves?
Ignores Cover nil against vehicles?

Thanks.