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...

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.