Ignore cover and vehicles?

These post were split from their original topic as they warranted a separate discussion, and were not contributing to the original discussion of the other topic. - Mush

HERO wrote:

The same here with all the Ignore Cover weapons that you can buy/switch/upgrade.  These weapons should be luxury weapons, not commonplace and spammed to the point where certain armies, ours is the best example, but Eldar, other armies utilizing bikes and fliers, which rely on as their primary defense mechanism is rendered invalid.

HERO, I must say that you are wrong on one thing when it comes to Ignores Cover special rule; it is not the same as not allowing cover saves entirely as the Ignores Cover special rule has its own entry in the main rulebook that says (quoted directly from rulebook)

Quote :

MRB, Pg.38

Ignores Cover

Cover Saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule

Now contrast this with the Vector Strike rule as stated in the FAQ,

Quote :

FAQ 1.4, pg2

Special Rules, Vector Strike.
Change the second paragraph to read “When Swooping, this
model may savage its prey. At the end of the Movement Phase, nominate one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved overthat turn. This unit may even be an enemy Flyer. That unit takes D3+1 hits,resolved at the model’s unmodified Strength and AP3, using Random Allocation. Against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target’s side armour. No coversaves are allowed against these hits

The difference between the two is that one only works when the model is wounded, while the other does not even allow cover saves and did not mention a specific kind of damage.

IN other words, Flyers and skimmers will not be affected by the Ignores Cover special rule as they do not even have a Wounds profile to begin with, and Hull Points are not wounds in any way whatsoever. On the other hand, jetbikers and non-vehicle units in cover will not get the saves from Ignores Cover special rule as they have wounds, and can be wounded.

Therefore, Markerlights and Smart Missile Systems, and for that effect anything with the Ignores Cover special rule will not and I repeat WILL NOT remove the cover saves that vehicles get due to them not having the Wounds attribute in their profile which renders that rule void.

Seriously I wonder why people always assume that when 'ignore cover saves' was said, it means that vehicles do not get saves as well. This is not the previous editions, and now there are specifics about rules like this in the rulebook that one must pay attention to. If their codex explicitly says that their weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule, it refers to the rule in the main rulebook. IF the codex says that it ignores cover saves, then only will one refer to the particulars of the weapon.

@Crisis_Vyper

It's 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. This was actually the case for the whole of 5th edition yet everyone still used their invulnerable saves on vehicles.

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".

Aside from the above quote by raw there is nothing stopping you (other than common sense) from preventing ignore cover working on vehicles, the same way by raw your there was nothing stopping your opponent preventing invulnerable saves working on vehicles.

But it's one of those slippery slope situations. You will run out of opponents fast if you try to pull something like that in my experience. But if you can get away with it good for you I guess.

Mushkilla wrote:

@Crisis_Vyper

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".

Key word of taking cover saves in that instance is to illustrate an example, so that the idea of cover saves on vehicles could be grasped easier. But the word for Ignores Cover special rule is very specific (wounds) hence the idea here.

Quote :

Aside from the above quote by raw there is nothing stopping you (other than common sense) from preventing ignore cover working on vehicles, the same way by raw your there was nothing stopping your opponent preventing invulnerable saves working on vehicles.

For that issue which you were saying (and one that I know about), they just revamped that one again;

Quote :

FAQ Ver 1.4, Pg 1

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”.

So yeah, our Flickerfields are fine once more.

Quote :

But it's one of those slippery slope situations. You will run out of opponents fast if you try to pull something like that in my experience. But if you can get away with it good for you I guess.

HERO here is talking about it in a more competitive sense, hence his gripe. So if we are following that logic, then we are to use the rules in a competitive sense and all your opponents as well as yourself are also gunning for the win.

Likewise, it is hard to twist a wording that is very obvious when it specifically says wounds. If they say 'Cover saves cannot be taken against weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule' then it also works against hull points as well as wounds. But with the rules putting the wording the way they did, then it is rather obvious.

But yes Mushkilla I would agree that sportsmanship is a very vital part of our play, provided that it is given in its appropriate context. Even then, we can't 'slime' our way past some things that are very obvious in its wording and intention, such as Ignores Cover special rule.

BRB wrote:

Page 75 - If the target (vehicle) is obscured and suffers a glancing/penetrating hit it must take a cover save against it exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound.

Glancing/Penetrating hits are considered wounds against vehicles.

@Crisis_Vyper - I don't think that being in a competitive environment is really going to let you get away with bending GW's shoddy wording in this way. Yes, the section on page 38 only refers to wounds but the section on page 75 makes it very clear that we treat glancing/penetrating hits in the same way as wounds. Trying to say Ignore Cover doesn't work on vehicles despite the explicit statement in the rules is going to cause a lot of resentment and as soon as a TO is called he's just going to say "Don't be such a prat, of course they get don't cover saves against a weapon that ignores cover".

Crisis_Vyper wrote:

Key word of taking cover saves in that instance is to illustrate an example, so that the idea of cover saves on vehicles could be grasped easier. But the word for Ignores Cover special rule is very specific (wounds) hence the idea here.

It's not an example. Without that sentence vehicles would not be able to take cover saves as they have no wounds!

Rules for cover saves page 18:

Quote :

If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save.

Rules for vehicles and cover saves page 75:

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.

Like I said that sentence is not an example for clarification but a key rule, that is the sole reason why vehicles can benefit from cover. Without it they would not be able to take cover saves as cover saves only work against wounds. That rule specifically states " it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" emphasis mine, so if a non-vehicle model can't take a cover save (because of ignore cover), then a vehicle model can't as they treat cover exactly like a non-vehicle model does.

fuhrmaaj wrote:

As to the original question, I think you'll find that many players will choose a unit or theme then build around it. This is the case with mush's list which is popular on this board. He likes the reavers (which have classically been considered suboptimal) then added units around them. The grots and gunboats are what worked best for his list and aren't completely unheard of either. If you like scourge and talos then start there and figure out what else you need. Most players don't like talos/cronos because they're slow and hard to deliver, but that will be what makes your list interesting.

Spot on. Fuhmraaj suggested approach is how you make units you like work. Talos are a fantastic unit but need a list built around them, and can't just be bolted in at random into a list not designed to support them. That's exactly how my list evolved. I liked reavers which at the time were not a popular choice. I wanted to make them work, so I started out running 27 of them and slowly refined my list over time to support them more efficiently (which mean't cutting their numbers down to 18), and adding units like ravagers and warriors as they provided the support the reavers needed to perform effectively.

Quote :

HERO here is talking about it in a more competitive sense, hence his gripe. So if we are following that logic, then we are to use the rules in a competitive sense and all your opponents as well as yourself are also gunning for the win.

Playing competitive =/= WAAC.

Count Adhemar wrote:

@Crisis_Vyper - I don't think that being in a competitive environment is really going to let you get away with bending GW's shoddy wording in this way. Yes, the section on page 38 only refers to wounds but the section on page 75 makes it very clear that we treat glancing/penetrating hits in the same way as wounds. Trying to say Ignore Cover doesn't work on vehicles despite the explicit statement in the rules is going to cause a lot of resentment and as soon as a TO is called he's just going to say "Don't be such a prat, of course they get don't cover saves against a weapon that ignores cover".

@Count Adhemar, Mushkilla and Autopilot

That sounds like an assumption than a true hard truth as hull points are not wounds. Two very similar mechanic, but entirely different in its designated purpose and true wording. If Hull Points are the exact same thing as wounds, then in this case they need a new errata on pg.38 for as I stated before the word wounds should never be there to begin with if they wanted it to ignore saves for Hull points as well. Either that or they amend the wording of Hull points to wounds (which is higly unlikely as I find that amending it like that is quite clumsy and odd due to the way it is defined in the rulebook at pg 70).

I am not trying to be a WAAC gamer here, but there are some things that people initially thought was the truth even though it was contrary to the truth at times. Warptime in 5th edition has a similar issue in terms of people taking it for granted that that means they could nitpick and reroll only failed to hits and to wounds, when it is not the case due to people wanting to believe that it does reroll only the failed ones and interpreted it as such. As a Tau player myself, I would love to use the rules to benefit my army, but I do not want to twist the rules despite it explicitly saying it as bright as day.

Maybe the rulebook in another language may make more sense when it comes to this (I always loved the Germans for this as their rules translation is very on the point, even with GW stuff and their RAW is the best in my opinion), but as of this moment the English version is not as clear as it should be, and the way Ignores Cover special rule weaponry is treated against vehicles with cover (which has hull points, not wounds. Functions similarly, but not the same) is quite an interesting issue.

If I offended anyone, it is not my intention.

I'm not sure it could really be too much clearer on this occasion.

BRB, Pg38 wrote:

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

Vehicles obviously do not have wounds so, on the face of it, your assumption would be correct. But we are explicitly told how to deal with this situation

BRB, Pg75 wrote:

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

So vehicles treat glancing and penetrating hits in the same way as non-vehicles treat wounds for the purposes of cover saves. An errata might be nice for the purpose of clarification but the RAW position is 100% clear and vehicles do not take cover saves against weapons with Ignores Cover.

Crisis_Vyper wrote:

That sounds like an assumption than a true hard truth as hull points are not wounds. Two very similar mechanic, but entirely different in its designated purpose and true wording.

It's not an assumption! It's written black on white on page 75 "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound". What part about the words "exactly like" is not clear to you?

EDIT: correct page number.

Crisis_Vyper wrote:

If Hull Points are the exact same thing as wounds...

They're not. Vehicles take cover saves exactly how a non-vehicle model takes a cover save against a Wound. I think that's your confusion. Non-vehicle models can't take cover saves against hits with the Ignores Cover USR so when a vehicle takes a cover save just like a non-vehicle model does against a Wound, it doesn't take a cover save against a hit with the Ignores Cover USR.

This was posted in another thread:

Finn wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Finn wrote:

Until this gets FAQed and I attend a tournament with a clarification that does not allow cover saves against grav weapons, I'll insist that ignore cover rule does not work on vehicle cover saves, period.

If they try to troll me, I'll troll them.

That's been discussed before and the short answer is that Ignores Cover does work on vehicle cover saves as, for the purposes of cover saves, vehicles treat glancing/penetrating hits exactly the same as non-vehicles treat wounds. Hence anything that denies a non-vehicle a cover save also denies it to vehicles. There's a thread about it here.

Yup. But it still is not clear and will not be until GW FAQs the topic. Having said that, stating that ignore cover does not affect vehicle cover saves is not sensible.

I'd argue that it is indeed clear. Page 75 says:

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

In view of the phrase "exactly like" I don't really see any room for ambiguity here.