Ignores Cover VS Vehicles

[Quaade]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The wording doesn't seem all that similar to me. Page 17 says that invulnerable saves "may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit." Page 75 says, "If the target [vehicle] 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."

Thank you for demonstrating my point, "...exactly like a non vehicle mode would against a wound." When can't a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound? When the attack has Ignore Cover, so if it takes it like a non-vehicle would against a wound, it is bound by the same restrictions.

[Caitsidhe]

Thank you for demonstrating my point, "...exactly like a non vehicle mode would against a wound." When can't a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound? When the attack has Ignore Cover, so if it takes it like a non-vehicle would against a wound, it is bound by the same restrictions.

It doesn't prove your point. It only proves that they need to add this to the FAQ since currently vehicles cannot use the rule but Invulnerable saves can be used.

[Caitsidhe]

Yeah I know, that's why I used it as an example. I think there is a reason the Vector Strike FAQ specifically says "cover saves are not permitted" as opposed to "these have the Ignores Cover special rule". It gives credence to the idea that Ignores Cover weapons do indeed only cover wounds.

I suspect you are correct due to the wording as well. What it means is that a Tau mosnter using his special rule of ignoring cover cannot deny a cover save to vehicles only the troops.

[Daemonette666]

That's why I said I doubt, instead of him being a ____. The way he asked it seemed it came up and he was clarifying. However this could be looked up trying to take advantage in game due to poor wording. This situation is a good example of rules lawering. The intent would be to justify if vehicles are immune to ignore cover. Clearly it wasn't his intent. If it was than spot on rules lawyering.

This question has been asked on another website wargamer.au as well. The reason it was asked there, was because it was ruled in an international tournament held in England this year, that the ignores cover USR does not work on vehicles. The person wanted to find out how others interpreted the rule, and how they thought it should be played, and to discuss it between themselves. Maybe in the hope that GW will errata it.

[Nabterayl]

I must admit I wouldn't be sorry to see an erratum on this subject. Why Ignores Cover should be specific to Wounds is beyond me.

[Caitsidhe]

I must admit I wouldn't be sorry to see an erratum on this subject. Why Ignores Cover should be specific to Wounds is beyond me.

I could think of a few "fluffy" reasons but not many in the realm of hard rules tech. I'd rather they not do an erratum as vehicles already have a hard enough time these days. Let them have the bone. It won't affect me personally, however, as it doesn't come up often enough for me to care.

[Daemonette666]

Normally such a rule would not effect my army, as most of the vehicles have the Daemon rule, so get a 5+ invul save. However I have been tinkering with a variant of the old rhino rush with Rhinos, land raiders, backed up by Defilers, Heldrakes, Forge Fiends and mauler fiends. I am also looking at a Traitor IG based army using CSM allies. The rule would be to my benefit then, but my enemy would also get the benefit for their hover tanks, etc.

Who knows, maybe GW will errata it when they bring out the Errata and FAQ for the new Eldar codex.

[Turner]

[URL=http://s149.photobucket.com/user/Turner1279/media/IAgree.jpg.html][/URL]






[URL=http://s149.photobucket.com/user/Turner1279/media/waveserpent_zps001be077.gif.html][/URL]



Congratulations.

[GravesDisease]

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."

If you wanted to take a Jink save you would do it after the opponent has rolled to hit - not after they roll to penetrate. The rule in which you quoted is for wounds on non-vehicle models, so if you were to be all RAW about it then you would need to find a more appropriate clause. What you have above cannot be applied to the discussion in this case as it is the difference between saving against hits and saving against damage (damage being wounds or penetrating hits[penetrating hits being glanced or penetrated results]).

[Aramel]

Well the rule for invulnerable saves also only mentions wounds, not hull points, does this mean that vehicles can't benefit from invul saves? Given the number of vehicles that specifically have invulnerable saves, it seems pretty clear to have been an omission in both rules.