Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Did a search and didn't find it so here goes.

If you look at the 'ignores cover" special rule you will find that it only applies to wounds, and says nothing about armour pens.

Cue Kingsly:

 Kingsley wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
Well the guys that usually win tournaments (or do really well consistently) were saying that the 4+ cover save on their tau vehicles left them pretty much untouched for a majority of the games. Seeing as Eldar also get the same treatment with the addition of moving faster and having better armoured transports I think its safe to say that they are totally fine.

Just remember to point out to your opponent that "Ignores cover" only applies to wounds not armour pen.

Actually, that's wrong. Vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" (p. 75), so things that ignore cover for Wounds only still ignore vehicle cover.

My argument against this is that it is giving the example of how a vehicle would get a save, not that it counts as a wound and works exactly like a wound would.

So go nuts.

Welcome to the hell of wounds vs pens in GW rules.

I'll refrain from going further except to say that there's literally no RAW answer unless you define them as equivalent in every way (which obviously does bad things to Tank Hunters, Shred, etc.)

Vehicles do not get a cover save from a weapon that Ignores Cover.

You take vehicle cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" (75)

How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound from an Ignores Cover weapon? It doesn’t. So neither does a vehicle.

"exactly like" seems clear enough to me. It should work.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Vehicles do not get a cover save from a weapon that Ignores Cover.

You take vehicle cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" (75)

How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound from an Ignores Cover weapon? It doesn’t. So neither does a vehicle.

So how comes the rending which is ap2 when rolling to wound does not become ap2 when rolling to pen?, it is how it is worded and how it was FAQ'd.

And that invulnerable saves were FAQ'd to include armour pens rather then vehicles getting a invulnerable just like they took a wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
"exactly like" seems clear enough to me. It should work.

So what happens if I had a weapon that ignored cover and doomed a tank with the old eldar dex? Since its a wound that I can ignore I should be able to re roll then correct? It cant be a wound just when you want it to be.

MarkyMark wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Vehicles do not get a cover save from a weapon that Ignores Cover.

You take vehicle cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" (75)

How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound from an Ignores Cover weapon? It doesn’t. So neither does a vehicle.

So how comes the rending which is ap2 when rolling to wound does not become ap2 when rolling to pen?, it is how it is worded and how it was FAQ'd.

Because rensing differentiates rolling to wound and what happens against vehicles.

Specific > General.

Can I use soul blaze against a vehicle then?,or shred?

Heres the FAQ in regards to rending

Q: If an attack with the Rending special rule rolls a 6 for their
Armour Penetration roll against a vehicle and subsequentlyscores a
Penetrating Hit, does that hit count as being AP2 as it would if the
attack rolled a 6 To Wound? (p41)
A: No.

Quite clearly says there rolling to wound is not the same as rolling to pen.

Surely specfic>General would be rolling to wound is not rolling to pen.

When exactly did the discussion become about rolling to-wound versus rolling to-pen? I thought this was about rolling cover saves for vehicles.

The fact that cover saves are rolled for vehicles like the glancing/penetrating hits (g/p's) are wounds, does not mean anything about things that are not cover saves for vehicles.

For example, the rule that rending wounds are AP2 on a roll of 6 to-wound, isn't changed by the rule that vehicle cover saves treat g/p's like wounds, because the latter rule doesn't make rolls to penetrate in any way like rolling to wound.

Ok then, so we treat cover saves exactly like we do for models with wounds, still does not give permission to ignore covers when not having suffered a wound.

MarkyMark wrote:
Ok then, so we treat cover saves exactly like we do for models with wounds, still does not give permission to ignore covers when not having suffered a wound.

Except it says to treat them exactly as if they were wounds, eh?

I think you may be reading too too much into it.

MarkyMark wrote:
Ok then, so we treat cover saves exactly like we do for models with wounds, still does not give permission to ignore covers when not having suffered a wound.

Treating cover saves against g/p's exactly like those g/p's were wounds does mean you can't take a cover save in circumstances where you wouldn't be able to take a cover save against a wound.

MarkyMark wrote:Can I use soul blaze against a vehicle then?,or shred?

Heres the FAQ in regards to rending

Q: If an attack with the Rending special rule rolls a 6 for their
Armour Penetration roll against a vehicle and subsequentlyscores a
Penetrating Hit, does that hit count as being AP2 as it would if the
attack rolled a 6 To Wound? (p41)
A: No.

Quite clearly says there rolling to wound is not the same as rolling to pen.

Surely specfic>General would be rolling to wound is not rolling to pen.

DeathReaper wrote:Vehicles do not get a cover save from a weapon that Ignores Cover.

You take vehicle cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" (75)

How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound from an Ignores Cover weapon? It doesn’t. So neither does a vehicle.

DeathReaper's explanation specifically states that vehicles take cover saves in the same way. This applies to nothing else, just cover saves. This argument is not new, we've been having it forever. As far as I'm concerned, Occam's Razor has never been more applicable. If you decide vehicles handle cover saves differently than non-vehicles, the game breaks. If you decide they work the same, then the game works fine. It's pretty clear what the right decision is.

I think you are trying to bend the rules to allow cover saves on your vehicles, but as jink saves are classified as a cover save, and a weapon that ignores cover would therefore not allow a jink save. Look at the FAQed Meteoric descent and vector strike, it FAQed that you do not get cover saves or jinks, which I think would work the same. I play both Tau and Eldar and what you mention is an upgrade not something automatic with all vehicles, however I do believe that ignore cover would negate their jink entirely, upgrade or not.

 Eiluj The Farseer wrote:
I think you are trying to bend the rules to allow cover saves on your vehicles, but as jink saves are classified as a cover save, and a weapon that ignores cover would therefore not allow a jink save. Look at the FAQed Meteoric descent and vector strike, it FAQed that you do not get cover saves or jinks, which I think would work the same. I play both Tau and Eldar and what you mention is an upgrade not something automatic with all vehicles, however I do believe that ignore cover would negate their jink entirely, upgrade or not.

Vector strike doesnt say use the ignore cover USR, which is strange as every other weapon or ability that can I think off post 6th ed does use it, vector strike says cover saves are not allowed against these hits.

@alienvalentine

Occams razor, so you are assuming wounds is equal to pens/glances in this respect, I say they arent as vehicles do not suffer wounds. There is only one assumption here the other is pure RAW.

Also, if i decide vehicles handle cover saves differntly, nope I havent decided that the BRB spells that out very clearly.

MarkyMark wrote:

 Eiluj The Farseer wrote:
I think you are trying to bend the rules to allow cover saves on your vehicles, but as jink saves are classified as a cover save, and a weapon that ignores cover would therefore not allow a jink save. Look at the FAQed Meteoric descent and vector strike, it FAQed that you do not get cover saves or jinks, which I think would work the same. I play both Tau and Eldar and what you mention is an upgrade not something automatic with all vehicles, however I do believe that ignore cover would negate their jink entirely, upgrade or not.

Vector strike doesnt say use the ignore cover USR, which is strange as every other weapon or ability that can I think off post 6th ed does use it, vector strike says cover saves are not allowed against these hits.

@alienvalentine

Occams razor, so you are assuming wounds is equal to pens/glances in this respect, I say they arent as vehicles do not suffer wounds. There is only one assumption here the other is pure RAW.

Also, if i decide vehicles handle cover saves differntly, nope I havent decided that the BRB spells that out very clearly.

No I'm not assuming wounds are the same thing as pens or glances. I'm just saying that there are two possible ways to handle this situation, one breaks the game, the other doesn't. Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is the best, so I picked the explanation that doesn't create some confusing rules question about whether or not pens/glances are the same as wounds, and conclude that if a weapon has the Ignores Cover USR, it ignores cover saves. Pretty simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW I agree, it's very odd that vector strikes don't just have the Ignores Cover USR. strange way of resolving that issue IMHO.

MarkyMark wrote:
Occams razor, so you are assuming wounds is equal to pens/glances in this respect, I say they arent as vehicles do not suffer wounds. There is only one assumption here the other is pure RAW.

It's not just us saying g/p's are exactly like wounds for rolling cover saves, it's right there in the main rulebook, as quoted, straight RaW.

MarkyMark wrote:

 Eiluj The Farseer wrote:
I think you are trying to bend the rules to allow cover saves on your vehicles, but as jink saves are classified as a cover save, and a weapon that ignores cover would therefore not allow a jink save. Look at the FAQed Meteoric descent and vector strike, it FAQed that you do not get cover saves or jinks, which I think would work the same. I play both Tau and Eldar and what you mention is an upgrade not something automatic with all vehicles, however I do believe that ignore cover would negate their jink entirely, upgrade or not.

Vector strike doesnt say use the ignore cover USR, which is strange as every other weapon or ability that can I think off post 6th ed does use it, vector strike says cover saves are not allowed against these hits.

@alienvalentine

Occams razor, so you are assuming wounds is equal to pens/glances in this respect, I say they arent as vehicles do not suffer wounds. There is only one assumption here the other is pure RAW.

Also, if i decide vehicles handle cover saves differntly, nope I havent decided that the BRB spells that out very clearly.

Well than I guess vehicles can't take invul saves either. Let's go back to that thread.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Well than I guess vehicles can't take invul saves either.

Why is that?
The wording for Invulnerable saves specifically mentions glancing/penetrating hits vs vehicles.

 Happyjew wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Well than I guess vehicles can't take invul saves either.

Why is that?
The wording for Invulnerable saves specifically mentions glancing/penetrating hits vs vehicles.

I think jdjamesdean@mail.com is trying to liken this discussion to a number of threads during 5th edition that tried to argue that vehicles couldn't take invulnerable saves because they didn't take wounds, and, I for one, agree with him. This argument is about as silly.

 alienvalentine wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Well than I guess vehicles can't take invul saves either.

Why is that?
The wording for Invulnerable saves specifically mentions glancing/penetrating hits vs vehicles.

I think jdjamesdean@mail.com is trying to liken this discussion to a number of threads during 5th edition that tried to argue that vehicles couldn't take invulnerable saves because they didn't take wounds, and, I for one, agree with him. This argument is about as silly.

Exactly, sorry I didn't think to clarify. Those threads popped up just about daily.

And the FAQ fixed the invulnerable save wording to include vehicles.

And here's the full rule from page 75:
"Obviously, vehicles cannot go to ground, voluntarily or otherwise. if the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take cover save, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a save pf 5+ for a wood and so on)."

"Exactly like a non vehicle model would do against a wound", that isn't "your vehicle takes a wound" but rather saying "you get a cover save like everything else and this is when you would use it". So until they FAQ ignores cover, you're going to find it pretty tough to tell me it counts as a wound only when it benefits you.

EDIT:
And here's ignores cover:
"Cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by weapons with the ignores cover special rule"

How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound from an Ignores Cover weapon?

Its the "would do against a wound" implying you use the cover save in order to block the shot, not "your tank gets a sorta kinda wound thing that probably gets ignored because the word wound was mentioned despite not having any".

What everyone else said.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Its the "would do against a wound" implying you use the cover save in order to block the shot, not "your tank gets a sorta kinda wound thing that probably gets ignored because the word wound was mentioned despite not having any".

That does not answer my question.

Mind answering it for me?

Infantry get hit, get wounded, and if their LOS is blocked by terrain they get the cover save of whatever they are behind. If the weapon has ingores cover they do not get to use the cover save against the wounds as per ignores cover:

"Cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by weapons with the ignores cover special rule"

Tanks get hit, roll for armour pen, then cover is determined. Its not a wound roll, thus no ignores cover.

Vehicles make cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound".

Ignore Cover prevents a non-vehicle model from saving a wound using a cover save. Therefore it also prevents a Glance or Pen from being saved, as that is "exactly like".

 Ravenous D wrote:
Infantry get hit, get wounded, and if their LOS is blocked by terrain they get the cover save of whatever they are behind. If the weapon has ingores cover they do not get to use the cover save against the wounds as per ignores cover:

"Cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by weapons with the ignores cover special rule"

Tanks get hit, roll for armour pen, then cover is determined. Its not a wound roll, thus no ignores cover.

So are you saying that Infantry do not get to take a cover save against a wound from a weapon with the Ignores Cover Special Rule?

As Mannahnin said "Vehicles make cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound". "

AKA: Vehicles can not take a cover save against a wound from a weapon with the Ignores Cover Special Rule because a non-vehicle model can not take a cover save against a wound from a weapon with the Ignores Cover Special Rule.

Your argument, at its basic level, is flawed. Please realize this.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Infantry get hit, get wounded, and if their LOS is blocked by terrain they get the cover save of whatever they are behind. If the weapon has ingores cover they do not get to use the cover save against the wounds as per ignores cover:

"Cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by weapons with the ignores cover special rule"

Tanks get hit, roll for armour pen, then cover is determined. Its not a wound roll, thus no ignores cover.

I feel it necessary to point out that the poll you commissioned shows the Dakka community disagrees. 93% of the voters agree that the Ignores cover rule applies to vehicles. Any time we achieve this kind of consensus is nigh on miraculous. I think it's time we put this discussion to bed.