Here we go!

Impaler Cannons:

Pg 47, Tyranid Codex:

"The Target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard."

New FAQ for Tyranids:

"Q: Can a unit take cover saves from any source other
than the terrain they are in, or touching, against
Wounds caused by an impaler cannon? (p47)
A: No."

So: What does this mean for vehicles, if anything? The FAQ specifes "wounds", but I could see this being applied to vehicles as well. I'm on the fence as to the interpretation.

Which of these, if any, will receive a cover save from an Impaler Cannon?

1. Rhino which popped smoke?

2. Landspeeder that moved flat out?

3. Battlewagon in KFF range?

Or, if none of these, under what circumstances CAN a vehicle receive a cover save against the Impaler Cannon?

What say you, Dakka?

I believe it does since cover saves for vehicles work with glances/pens exactly the way they do for wounds.

I really don't see how this is a question. The FAQ clearly states that a unit, in this case the vehicle is its own unit, does not receive cover from anything except terrain. This means that popped smoke, flat out, KFF, and any other cover save, except terrain, does not work.

This would also mean that there are NO circumstances under which a vehicle can receive a cover save.

Darthslowe wrote:I really don't see how this is a question. The FAQ clearly states that a unit, in this case the vehicle is its own unit, does not receive cover from anything except terrain. This means that popped smoke, flat out, KFF, and any other cover save, except terrain, does not work.

This would also mean that there are NO circumstances under which a vehicle can receive a cover save.

wrong, if the vehicle is in a ruin that is blocking los or obscuring enough then it gets the cover save. if it is behind the ruin blocking los and in the open then it doesn not get the cover save.

Darthslowe wrote:I really don't see how this is a question. The FAQ clearly states that a unit, in this case the vehicle is its own unit, does not receive cover from anything except terrain. This means that popped smoke, flat out, KFF, and any other cover save, except terrain, does not work.

This would also mean that there are NO circumstances under which a vehicle can receive a cover save.

The question is because the FAQ states cover from 'Wounds'. Vehicles don't take 'Wounds'.

puma713 wrote:

Darthslowe wrote:I really don't see how this is a question. The FAQ clearly states that a unit, in this case the vehicle is its own unit, does not receive cover from anything except terrain. This means that popped smoke, flat out, KFF, and any other cover save, except terrain, does not work.

This would also mean that there are NO circumstances under which a vehicle can receive a cover save.

The question is because the FAQ states cover from 'Wounds'. Vehicles don't take 'Wounds'.

Go read the section on saves. You don't get invuln saves against glances/pens either, RAW.

Vehicles only get cover saves based on LOS, not based on terrain. So they'd have to be touching a piece of terrain obscuring them 50% or more to get a cover save. It says they can ONLY get saves via terrain, not COVER, so no saves from anything classified as COVER except TERRAIN, so no save from intervening units, special rules, etc.

This is a ridiculously huge buff and makes Hive Guard one of the strongest anti-eldar units in the game.

Traceoftoxin wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Darthslowe wrote:I really don't see how this is a question. The FAQ clearly states that a unit, in this case the vehicle is its own unit, does not receive cover from anything except terrain. This means that popped smoke, flat out, KFF, and any other cover save, except terrain, does not work.

This would also mean that there are NO circumstances under which a vehicle can receive a cover save.

The question is because the FAQ states cover from 'Wounds'. Vehicles don't take 'Wounds'.

Go read the section on saves. You don't get invuln saves against glances/pens either, RAW.

Right. And in cases where vehicles had Invulnerable saves (Bjorn) they were FAQ'ed to work.

Traceoftoxin wrote:Vehicles only get cover saves based on LOS, not based on terrain. So they'd have to be touching a piece of terrain obscuring them 50% or more to get a cover save. It says they can ONLY get saves via terrain, not COVER, so no saves from anything classified as COVER except TERRAIN, so no save from intervening units, special rules, etc.

This is a ridiculously huge buff and makes Hive Guard one of the strongest anti-eldar units in the game.

This is still missing the point. The FAQ states:

Q: Can a unit take cover saves from any source other
than the terrain they are in, or touching, against
Wounds caused by an impaler cannon? (p47)
A: No.

That's all well and good, but vehicles don't take wounds. If it had said "against penetrating/glancing hits", then this FAQ would apply to vehicles.

I'm not saying I am agreeing with this interpretation or that I would play that way, but it has to be brought to light because it will come up.

Traceoftoxin wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Darthslowe wrote:I really don't see how this is a question. The FAQ clearly states that a unit, in this case the vehicle is its own unit, does not receive cover from anything except terrain. This means that popped smoke, flat out, KFF, and any other cover save, except terrain, does not work.

This would also mean that there are NO circumstances under which a vehicle can receive a cover save.

The question is because the FAQ states cover from 'Wounds'. Vehicles don't take 'Wounds'.

Vehicles only get cover saves based on LOS, not based on terrain. So they'd have to be touching a piece of terrain obscuring them 50% or more to get a cover save. It says they can ONLY get saves via terrain, not COVER, so no saves from anything classified as COVER except TERRAIN, so no save from intervening units, special rules, etc.

What about cover from wargear? Or rather, a cover SAVE prodvided by wargear(i.e. smoke launchers, KFF)

Traceoftoxin wrote:
Go read the section on saves. You don't get invuln saves against glances/pens either, RAW.

Some of us do. From the DE FAQ:

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming
immobilised from a Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: No. The save from a flickerfield can only be taken
against glancing and penetrating hits.

So the flickerfield save, an invulnerable save, can only be taken against glancing and penetrating hits.

So you get invul saves against glances and pens.

puma - and vehicles take cover saves in the same way everyone else does, but with wounds replaced by penetrating or glancing hits

So this FAQ affects Vehicles as well, and makes HG an even more obvious choice

nosferatu1001 wrote:puma - and vehicles take cover saves in the same way everyone else does, but with wounds replaced by penetrating or glancing hits

So this FAQ affects Vehicles as well, and makes HG an even more obvious choice

Yes I know. I will be fielding 6 of them. However, I fully expect it to come up in a game/at a tournament.

time wizard wrote:

Traceoftoxin wrote:
Go read the section on saves. You don't get invuln saves against glances/pens either, RAW.

Some of us do. From the DE FAQ:

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming
immobilised from a Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: No. The save from a flickerfield can only be taken
against glancing and penetrating hits.

So the flickerfield save, an invulnerable save, can only be taken against glancing and penetrating hits.

So you get invul saves against glances and pens.

That didn't exist before. It's even more evidence that the wording 'wounds' in this situation can be substituted for 'glancing and penetrating hits'. It wasn't FAQed to work, it was FAQed to be clear. FAQs don't change the way things work fundamentally, they clarify the intent. Erratas change the way things work fundamentally.

This is crazy. My Kan Wall army just went from awesome to useless against my friend's Tyranids due to one FAQed unit, if this works against vehicles.

Not that I don't think Tyranids need some help, but come on.

Murrdox wrote:This is crazy. My Kan Wall army just went from awesome to useless against my friend's Tyranids due to one FAQed unit, if this works against vehicles.

Not that I don't think Tyranids need some help, but come on.

I don't think it's as bad as you think.
HG are expensive, you could only have a max of 9, and that would use up all 3 elite FOC choices.
The impaler cannon only has a 24" range.

You'll might see more HG showing up, which at $24.75 per model is probably what GW wants!
Each brood is over $75!

Murrdox wrote:This is crazy. My Kan Wall army just went from awesome to useless against my friend's Tyranids due to one FAQed unit, if this works against vehicles.

Not that I don't think Tyranids need some help, but come on.

Honestly I think it hurt Kans the most, as they are going to be in Hive Guard range from turn 2 on, and aren't exactly hard to destroy.

for the KFF I'd make the argument they are in cover though. The KFF projects a 6" bubble of obscured terrain. If it can protect you when the truck your riding in explodes, then surely it is surrounding and protecting each figure in the bubble.

That's fine for a fluff argument but has no feet to stand on for rules.

It provides a cover save, not a bubble of terrain.

Murrdox wrote:This is crazy. My Kan Wall army just went from awesome to useless against my friend's Tyranids due to one FAQed unit, if this works against vehicles.

Not that I don't think Tyranids need some help, but come on.

I feel your pain. At least I'm in the process of moving to a BW list (which may still suck depending on what facing they are hitting). Kan Walls are definitely going to hurt worse though.

Glad I don't face 'nids very often.

The strange thing is most FAQ rulings at least have their basis in the text of the codex, or an interpretation of the Codex combined with the Core Rulebook.

Suddenly changing Hive Guard such that it bypasses any and all Wargear which grants a cover save simply doesn't work against it really isn't mentioned anywhere in the Codex whatsoever. I don't think I've ever ran into a Tyranid player who read the Impaler Cannon rule and tried to say that popping smoke or a KFF had no effect on it.

Oh well. That Battlewagon and Green Tide army I'm working on are suddenly looking more appealing (one of my close friends plays Tyranids, so I run into them fairly often)

sirlynchmob wrote:for the KFF I'd make the argument they are in cover though. The KFF projects a 6" bubble of obscured terrain. If it can protect you when the truck your riding in explodes, then surely it is surrounding and protecting each figure in the bubble.

No, it doesnt provide a bubble of obscured terrain, it makes vehicles have a 5+ cover save

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but since only terrain provides cover saves, does that mean intervening vehicles do not give cover (even if you're touching them)?

So if you had a Rhino hidden out of LoS behind a Land Raider (and touching it) you don't get cover.
However if the Land raider gets Wrecked (thus becoming terrain), now you do get a cover save?

Seems odd, but I'll give Nids all the buffs they can get.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but since only terrain provides cover saves, does that mean intervening vehicles do not give cover (even if you're touching them)?

So if you had a Rhino hidden out of LoS behind a Land Raider (and touching it) you don't get cover.
However if the Land raider gets Wrecked (thus becoming terrain), now you do get a cover save?

Partially correct. Since you only benefit from cover you are in or touching, even if the rhino was behind the wrecked land raider, it would not get a cover save. It would have to be in the terrain, or in this case on top of the wrecked land raider, and 50% obscured to get the cover save.

The FAQ says you get cover saves from cover you are in or touching which is confusing because to get a cover save according to the main rulebook, you must be at least partially in the terrain.
Not sure what they mean by terrain you are in, or touching.

Reading it literally, I suppose if you were touching a wrecked land raider with a rhino, you would get a cover save by the FAQ. But would you have to take a difficult terrain test to touch the raider?
By adding 2 words, GW opens a new can of worms.

The guy who answered that question is as bad at reading comprehension as the players that have been trying to deny people cover saves from Impaler cannons... The cannon text never mentions cover saves. What they do mention is cover, a status that might grant you a cover save.

Another round about question, does war gear provide cover as if it's a terrain cover save?

drorain wrote:Another round about question, does war gear provide cover as if it's a terrain cover save?

No. The FAQ says you can't take a cover save from any source other than the terrain.

Wargear and special rules would qualify as other sources.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:for the KFF I'd make the argument they are in cover though. The KFF projects a 6" bubble of obscured terrain. If it can protect you when the truck your riding in explodes, then surely it is surrounding and protecting each figure in the bubble.

No, it doesnt provide a bubble of obscured terrain, it makes vehicles have a 4+ cover save

Fixed.

time wizard wrote:
The FAQ says you get cover saves from cover you are in or touching which is confusing because to get a cover save according to the main rulebook, you must be at least partially in the terrain.
Not sure what they mean by terrain you are in, or touching.

Reading it literally, I suppose if you were touching a wrecked land raider with a rhino, you would get a cover save by the FAQ. But would you have to take a difficult terrain test to touch the raider?
By adding 2 words, GW opens a new can of worms.

I believe the "touching" terrain is specifically a reference to Barricades... meaning non-area terrain that units benefit from if they are touching it. If you look in the BRB I believe the text there references that if the base of a unit is "touching" the barricade, they benefit from the cover. Since a Barricade isn't area terrain, the model can't be "in" the terrain, it has to touch it instead.

We use Barricades occasionally, but I don't see many other people using them. I think the FAQ and the Impaler Cannon wording are written that way to explicitly allow you to take saves if you are behind a Barricade.

Very nice:

A vehicle can't use other vehicles (that aren't wrecked) to generate cover from the impaler cannon.

Nob-bikers won't get thier cover saves from kicking up dust.

Our ranged anti-tank unit just got better... but then it is the only anti-tank ranged weapon worth a darn in this codex. It's not like we get Purifiers + Razor Spam + Psy-Cannon Dreads or Valks + Autocannon squads + Vet Meltagun Spam; or LF + Razor Spam + Meltagun Hunters. The nid's ranged anti-tank is pigeoned holed into 3 elite slots. Moreover, given that HG have short range and have to walk on in DoW, we are still getting kicked in the teeth in 1/3 of the missions.

Its hardly the end of the world.

The FAQ states a unit may not take a Cover save from anything other than the terrain they are in or touching.


For me and I will argue this....

1. My vehicle is not taking a cover save, covering saves come from terrain. My Invulnerable save (Flickerfield/KFF) is given to me by wargear, thus not a cover save.

2. My vehicle does not take wounds. It take glancing hits or pentrating hits....

It HAS to be this way otherwise all armour saves, (IE:terminators with 2+/3++ wont get an invulnerable save because the they arent in cover?) an Archon with Shadowfield and every other piece of wargear in the whole universe is nullified by a tyranid weapon.... Its impossible, illogical and just a shining example of why GW need to hire a lawyer to word there rules.

Good luck with that.

Milisim wrote:1. My Invulnerable save (Flickerfield/KFF) is given to me by wargear, thus not a cover save.

FF grant an invulnerable saves. KFF grant a cover save. Per the FAQ, impaler cannon ignore cover saves that are not generated by being in or touching terrain. Thus impaler cannons ignore KFF. However, impaler cannons do not ignore invulnerable saves; therefore impaler cannons do NOT ignore FF saves.

Luck has nothing to do with it.... if someone is going to interpret the rule so that nothing in the whole universe gives a save to a Impaler Cannon, ill just interpret the opposite and force a roll off... as there is no clear way to understand this new FAQ. RAW or RAI is still grey.

Milisim wrote:Luck has nothing to do with it.... if someone is going to interpret the rule so that nothing in the whole universe gives a save to a Impaler Cannon, ill just interpret the opposite and force a roll off... as there is no clear way to understand this new FAQ. RAW or RAI is still grey.

Which would be fine if the rule worked that way. You not liking something does not make it unclear.

I dont have my ork codex on me, but if that is true then sucks to be orks =]



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flickerfields and terminator armour etc are NOT giving Cover saves,,, they are INVULNERABLE SAVES and are not affected by terrain or cover in general and regardless of situation they always get to take them unless stated by a weapons special rule... which this impaler cannons does not clearly define for vehicles or even saves otehr than cover saves....

Yes, yes it does. I'm looking forward to playing my friends' Tyranids with my Kan Wall list just to see how bad he can slaughter me.

The only peg leg we get to stand on is that vehicles don't take wounds.

Milisim wrote:The FAQ states a unit may not take a Cover save from anything other than the terrain they are in or touching.


For me and I will argue this....

1. My vehicle is not taking a cover save, covering saves come from terrain. My Invulnerable save (Flickerfield/KFF) is given to me by wargear, thus not a cover save.

2. My vehicle does not take wounds. It take glancing hits or pentrating hits....

It HAS to be this way otherwise all armour saves, (IE:terminators with 2+/3++ wont get an invulnerable save because the they arent in cover?) an Archon with Shadowfield and every other piece of wargear in the whole universe is nullified by a tyranid weapon.... Its impossible, illogical and just a shining example of why GW need to hire a lawyer to word there rules.

Flickerfields will still work because they are stated as providing an invulnerable save. KFFs grant a cover save, so they won't work. Cover saves and invulnerable saves are two different things.

Milisim wrote:The FAQ states a unit may not take a Cover save from anything other than the terrain they are in or touching.


For me and I will argue this....

1. My vehicle is not taking a cover save, covering saves come from terrain. My Invulnerable save (Flickerfield/KFF) is given to me by wargear, thus not a cover save.

2. My vehicle does not take wounds. It take glancing hits or pentrating hits....

It HAS to be this way otherwise all armour saves, (IE:terminators with 2+/3++ wont get an invulnerable save because the they arent in cover?) an Archon with Shadowfield and every other piece of wargear in the whole universe is nullified by a tyranid weapon.... Its impossible, illogical and just a shining example of why GW need to hire a lawyer to word there rules.

I have no idea what you're arguing... why are you trying to say that invulnerable saves and cover saves are the same, and that negating one negates the other?

No im saying INV saves are DIFFERENT to cover saves and nothing will stop you using an invulnerable save unless noted otherwise in the description of the weapon... IE: Shattershard etc.....

i think Nate668 and wycomingfox agree with that point like I do....

I think the confusion was you included KFF in there which is a cover save, not invulnerable save.

Milisim wrote:No im saying INV saves are DIFFERENT to cover saves and nothing will stop you using an invulnerable save unless noted otherwise in the description of the weapon...

Sure, and that has exactly nothing to do with Hive Guard.

edited to include the quote I was responding to:

Milisim wrote:No im saying INV saves are DIFFERENT to cover saves and nothing will stop you using an invulnerable save unless noted otherwise in the description of the weapon... IE: Shattershard etc.....

i think Nate668 and wycomingfox agree with that point like I do....

Right, so... whats your point? Nothing ever calls out invulnerable saves as being negated. The only time FFs were brought up was to prove that wounds caused == glancing/pen results.

I'm trying to figure out why you posted.

Happyjew wrote:I think the confusion was you included KFF in there which is a cover save, not invulnerable save.

That and the wounds vs. Glance/Pen.

Milisim wrote:No im saying INV saves are DIFFERENT to cover saves and nothing will stop you using an invulnerable save unless noted otherwise in the description of the weapon... IE: Shattershard etc.....

i think Nate668 and wycomingfox agree with that point like I do....

Um, yes. I don't believe anyone has said that Hive Guard negate Invulnerable saves. Cover saves and ONLY Cover saves are negated. Invulnerable saves are taken as normal.

Listen, I'm not saying the Impaler Cannon negates Invulnerable saves...

But the Impaler Cannon totally negates Invulnerable saves.

Murrdox wrote:Listen, I'm not saying the Impaler Cannon negates Invulnerable saves...

But the Impaler Cannon totally negates Invulnerable saves.

... Not sure if trolling...

rigeld2 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:Listen, I'm not saying the Impaler Cannon negates Invulnerable saves...

But the Impaler Cannon totally negates Invulnerable saves.

... Not sure if trolling...

I think he's talking about this.

Murrdox wrote:This is crazy. My Kan Wall army just went from awesome to useless against my friend's Tyranids due to one FAQed unit, if this works against vehicles.

I played a Tyranid fella two weeks ago who had Impaler Cannons. We could not figure out how it interacted with the KFF, so we played like the cover save was ignored. Had it not been for Spearhead deployment and him playing a rearguard withdrawal, I still almost overwhelmed him with 9 Walkers and 125 Boyz.

rigeld2 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:Listen, I'm not saying the Impaler Cannon negates Invulnerable saves...

But the Impaler Cannon totally negates Invulnerable saves.

... Not sure if trolling...

Aww c'mon, that was about as obvious as a Nob in a china store!

With it specifying wounds I'm tilted to the it applies to models with wounds. Argue if you like, however my Rhino has 0 wounds.

Then read the part of the BRB where it says that your rhino takes cover saves exactly like infantry does for wounds....

coredump wrote:Then read the part of the BRB where it says that your rhino takes cover saves exactly like infantry does for wounds....

Got a pg number to go with the ...?

Oddly enough the only place you have permission to take cover saves on vehicles - p62 from memory

Emailed games workshop, they replied

"Good Morning,

I will ensure this question gets updated to include glancing and penetrating hits

Regards,
FAQ Team"

I'm a sad gretchin, but hey I'll just find a way to deal with those bastards on the back of the table.

Whether or not that e-mail is real, at least you were not asking a question. If you had, it would not matter since e-mails to gw don't count in YMDC.

drorain wrote:I'm a sad gretchin, but hey I'll just find a way to deal with those bastards on the back of the table.

... back of the table? With a 24" range?

ORk armies generally want to move forwards, especially Kan wall

Is a penetrating hit or glancing hit a wound.

No.

Therefore at this moment in time my kff gives my kans and Dreds and truckks and waggons and buggies and what ever other vics I have a cover save. Seems simple.

My bikes are screwed and so are my boyz (if nor in terrain. ) so Meh.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:Is a penetrating hit or glancing hit a wound.

No.

Main rulebook, page 62, 5th paragraph under 'Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets', "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it. exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound..."

So you are correct that a glancing or penetrating hit is not a wound.

However, a vehicle takes cover saves against those hits exactly like saves against wounds.

So KFF which gives a cover save against wounds, does not give a vehicle a cover save against the impaler cannon unless the vehicle is obscured and in cover.

However, saves for vehicles are taken "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound".
Furthermore, pg 29, Template Weapons:
"Cover saves are ignored when resolving wounds." Are you seriously trying to tell us that since your kans and Dreds never suffer wounds, they still get cover saves from template weapons?

Templates ignore cover saves. Regardless.

You're argument is that a Glancing/Penetrating Hit =/= Wound.
The only time cover saves are ignore from templates per the BRB is when resolving wounds. Therefore according to you Templates do not ignore cover saves for vehicles.

If the email is real? I wouldn't be lying to a bunch of anonymous people on a public forum, theres no value for it, I just want to share the info.

For me it's more I'd like to know how to play it out for tournaments, I will play that I don't get cover saves and stop whining about it, and move on and discuss how to deal with impaler cannons...as I started a new thread for that.

The problem, is per the tenets of YMDC:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

oh okay, sorry bout that =)

And why not since vics don't suffer wounds templates don't ignore them Raw. Rai I would say yes and play it that way.

Please note, I was not calling you a liar. I was informing you of the tenets. My point was all the e-mail you posted said was they would change the FAQ (at some indeterminate time in the future). Had you asked "Does X mean Y?" and they said Yes, per the tenets it would not matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GODLYNESS, I would also like to point you to page 73, Walkers and Assaults:
"Each roll on the Vehicle Damage table against a walker counts as a single wound for purposes of working out who won the combat"
Yet more proof that Glance/Pen Hits == Wounds.

So instead of Gw writing more ambiguous rules and adding 30 more pages for vehicle combat they said screw it if we say they are like wounds common sense should say this counts to combat resolution even though vics can't take wounds. Alright let's do that my hand hurts from writing all this stuff anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Side note does a vic have a wound profile.

No?

O well it can't take wounds then.

Just disregard the FAQ answer... it's incorrect. And if it was a rules change to the Impaler cannon it should be in Errata.

I have given you multiple examples that show Glance/Pen Hits == Wounds, yet you are trying to tell me that something that cannot suffer wounds, only some of the rules apply.

Templates ignore cover saves for resolving wounds, yet no one argues that vehicles can take cover saves since they don't suffer wounds.
Cover (and Invuln) saves are taken for vehicles exactly like cover/invuln saves for models with wounds.
Glance/Pen hits on walkers in cc counts as wounds.

I've shown my proof, including page references. As for you all you can say is that Glance/Pen hits =/= wounds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
GODLYNESS, I would also like to point you to page 73, Walkers and Assaults:
"Each roll on the Vehicle Damage table against a walker counts as a single wound for purposes of working out who won the combat"
Yet more proof that Glance/Pen Hits == Wounds.

Happyjew wrote:I have given you multiple examples that show Glance/Pen Hits == Wounds, yet you are trying to tell me that something that cannot suffer wounds, only some of the rules apply.

Templates ignore cover saves for resolving wounds, yet no one argues that vehicles can take cover saves since they don't suffer wounds.
Cover (and Invuln) saves aret aken for vehicles exactly like cover/invuln saves for models with wounds.
Glance/Pen hits on walkers in cc counts as wounds.

I've shown my proof, including page references. As for you all you can say is that Glance/Pen hits =/= wounds.

HappyJew is completely right there should be no further arguement on this subject. It's been ruled a thousand times that glance/pen are saved the same way as wounds and vice versa. which means that anyting that ignores cover, ignores cover it's as simple as that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:


Tis true but when they lose combat they don't take no retreat wounds it says they take glancing hits. so vics don't take wounds.

which rule book are you looking at? Walkers have ignored lost combat for a long time

Happyjew wrote:I have given you multiple examples that show Glance/Pen Hits == Wounds, yet you are trying to tell me that something that cannot suffer wounds, only some of the rules apply.

Templates ignore cover saves for resolving wounds, yet no one argues that vehicles can take cover saves since they don't suffer wounds.
Cover (and Invuln) saves aret aken for vehicles exactly like cover/invuln saves for models with wounds.
Glance/Pen hits on walkers in cc counts as wounds.

I've shown my proof, including page references. As for you all you can say is that Glance/Pen hits =/= wounds.

So because no one argues we should accept it as truth? It just has never come up. Saying ignores all cover saves cept terrain caused by wounds. RAW vics don't take wounds therefore impaler cannon does not ignore vic coversaves. Till the faq is faqed that is RAW. Just because you want it to affect vics does not mean it does. To say they take cover saves like wounds is all fine and dandy but at no time dies a vic take a wound.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote: when they lose combat they don't take no retreat wounds it says they take glancing hits. so vics don't take wounds.

You are saying that because there is a specific allowance for them to ignore one source of wounds, that they ignore all sources?



Even when that example tells you that they take glances instead?

Just making sure I get what you are saying, because it baffles me.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:Tis true but when they lose combat they don't take no retreat wounds it says they take glancing hits. so vics don't take wounds.

Which helps my side of the debate. Since they cannot take wounds they automatically suffer Glancing hits which as I have shown = Wounds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tis true but

which rule book are you looking at? Walkers have ignored lost combat for a long time

My bad that is entirely true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:Tis true but when they lose combat they don't take no retreat wounds it says they take glancing hits. so vics don't take wounds.

Which helps my side of the debate. Since they cannot take wounds they automatically suffer Glancing hits which as I have shown = Wounds.

Or they don't. Wounds have no effect on vics. Only pentrating and glancing hits.

I was wrong I was on fourth with walkers in combat. I think. Where they took glancing hits for losing combat.

The godlyness - penetrating / glancing hits are equivalent to wounds.

You are ONLY given permission to take a cover save in the SAME WAY as a non-vehicle (please, actually use the word "vehicle", as per the forum rules) would take a cover save against wounds.

If you are unable to take a cover save against the wound, the vehicle is unable to take a cover save against any glancing / penetrating hit.

RAW, you are 100% incorrect

Spetulhu wrote:Just disregard the FAQ answer... it's incorrect. And if it was a rules change to the Impaler cannon it should be in Errata.

Can you cite how it's incorrect?

Spetulhu - erm, how?

The FAQ MUST have changed rules, because they changed the answer for SitW. So no, it *should* be in errata, but its presence in FAQ doesnt alter its validity.

I am not even certain that is true, people have asked if that interpretation was valid since the book came out.

Not sure what youre asking there....

SitW was ruled one way wrt vehicle
They then entirely reversed that decision

Now, only ONE of those could have followed the rules

So to say a FAQ answer is incorrect because it doesnt follow the ruels and so should be in errata is nullified by GWs own rulings.

If that was for me, I was meaning the Impaler Cannons as FAQ vs. Errata.

Ah, the whole SitW being blocked by transports? there certainly was a rules argument against that ruling, but it was mainly an argument on how unfair it was!

Agreed.

Now if I can just convince them to FAQ Doom's ability to work on embarked units! *rubs hands together mischeviously*

Wait, wait, wait, what if we get all the Nid players to bombard GW with demands. For example, Doom does not allow cover saves, Models for everything (and for cheap). The list goes on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please note I do not condone this sort of action.

Just my .02 about this issue and Wounds not being equivalent to Glancing and Penetrating Hits.

The ERRATA for the Necrons goes as such:

Page 52 – Sweep Attack, second paragraph
Change the last sentence to “Cover saves are not
permitted against Wounds, glancing hits and
penetrating hits caused by Sweep Attacks.

The Codex Entry for Necron sweep attacks reads as:

"Cover Saves are not permitted against wounds caused by sweep attacks."

This in my mind shows that GW does not think that wounds are the same as Glancing/Penetrating Hits.
Also this is Errata for a Book not a GW house Rule FAQ.

Personally I do believe that the Impaler Cannon would Ignore the KFF and its Ilk. So this is in no way an indication
of my stance on that rule, but more to bring this Wound =/= Glancing/Penetrating hit issue to light.

....which is directly refuted by the rules for taking cover saves on vehicles.

Milisim wrote:The FAQ states a unit may not take a Cover save from anything other than the terrain they are in or touching.


For me and I will argue this....

1. My vehicle is not taking a cover save, covering saves come from terrain. My Invulnerable save (Flickerfield/KFF) is given to me by wargear, thus not a cover save.

2. My vehicle does not take wounds. It take glancing hits or pentrating hits....

Regarding point 2., on page 62 of the BRB, it says

BRB wrote:
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing hit or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.

Thus, any wargear that makes a vehicle "count as obscured" or any rule that grants a vehicle a "cover save" will not provide a save against the Impaler Cannon. Since this is the only mention of cover saves for vehicles in the BRB, I have to assume that the clause "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound" applies to all cover saves, and not merely ones that grow out of a status of "obscured".

Milisim wrote:It HAS to be this way otherwise all armour saves, (IE:terminators with 2+/3++ wont get an invulnerable save because the they arent in cover?) an Archon with Shadowfield and every other piece of wargear in the whole universe is nullified by a tyranid weapon.... Its impossible, illogical and just a shining example of why GW need to hire a lawyer to word there rules.

The FAQ does not say "invulnerable saves", it says "cover saves". In this case, it's perfectly clear. If a piece of wargear says that it grants a "cover save" (KFF, Smoke), then the Hive Guard ignore it. If a piece of Wargear says that it grants an "invulnerable save" (Flickerfields, Shadowfield), then Hive Guard do not ignore it.

Derp. Didn't notice that there were two more pages.

I'll leave this post here as a monument to my own ineptitude.

Damn is this thread full of some stupid. I mean people ignoring rulings that are actually in the BRB just cause it suits them not too for the sake of this tiny argument? O_o Plus there are a lot of WAAC fags hanging about here too.

Hive Guard aren't even that great a unit. People just mad cause it means they can take out the transports they hide all their men in.

Hive Guard are expensive, are the only good durable anti-tank Tyranids have, can only be fielded in groups of 3 with a max of 9 on the field at a time and taking 9 really limits the armies choice of specialist units.

The FAQ clearly states that no cover saves can be taken against the impaler cannon unless they are in or touching obscuring terrain. How is that hard to understand?

Other than name calling, do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?

second half of my post? Or did you not bother reading that far? infact pretty much anything after my first couple of sentences.

rigeld2 wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:Just disregard the FAQ answer... it's incorrect. And if it was a rules change to the Impaler cannon it should be in Errata.

Can you cite how it's incorrect?

The question is the wrong question and the answer is false. Impaler cannons deny you "the benefits of cover" in certain circumstances - cover saves are never mentioned. Being in cover might ofc grant you a cover save... which benefit the cannons can potentially deny you.

Blame GW for the badly worded rules.

And then the FAQ clarified this to mean all cover saves unless you are in/touching terrain.

1st:

Impaler Cannons don't ignore ALL cover saves. Models with a Wound (W) profile are still allowed to take cover saves, after meeting certain requirements. However, they only ignore cover saves if any actual Wounds were caused. Notice it is Wounds, and NOT wounds. The Rulebook makes a distinction between Wound and wound, as is reflected in the FAQ.

2nd.

The cover save rule for vehicles allows them to take a cover save, as a non vehicle model would have as well against a wound (again, NOT Wound (W)). However the Wounds caused by Impaler Cannons, must go directly against the Wounds characteristic profile of the model, in order for it to ignore the cover save, since that is how one inflicts Wounds. As vehicles DO NOT have a Wounds (W) characteristics profile, this leaves them immune to the effects of the Impaler Cannon in regards to their own cover saves. It also allows wounds caused by template weapons to ignore their cover saves, since they refer to wounds and NOT Wounds(W).

So in short and in reiteration. Vehicles DONT have Wounds, so Impaler Cannons don't ignore their cover saves.

2nd is not true, and yes vehicle cover saves unless generated by cover are ignored.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:So in short and in reiteration. Vehicles DONT have Wounds, so Impaler Cannons don't ignore their cover saves.

This is the most convoluted and incorrect post I've read in here in a while.

edit: ignoring the Impaler Cannon can you find a single place in the rules where wound does not also equate to a glance/pen on vehicles?

nosferatu1001 wrote:2nd is not true, and yes vehicle cover saves unless generated by cover are ignored.

I think you meant to say generated by terrain (As is the wording in the FAQ). Cover can be granted by vehicles, intervening models, etc. I know you know the difference, but some people may misunderstand the difference.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:1st:

Impaler Cannons don't ignore ALL cover saves. Models with a Wound (W) profile are still allowed to take cover saves, after meeting certain requirements. However, they only ignore cover saves if any actual Wounds were caused. Notice it is Wounds, and NOT wounds. The Rulebook makes a distinction between Wound and wound, as is reflected in the FAQ.

2nd.

The cover save rule for vehicles allows them to take a cover save, as a non vehicle model would have as well against a wound (again, NOT Wound (W)). However the Wounds caused by Impaler Cannons, must go directly against the Wounds characteristic profile of the model, in order for it to ignore the cover save, since that is how one inflicts Wounds. As vehicles DO NOT have a Wounds (W) characteristics profile, this leaves them immune to the effects of the Impaler Cannon in regards to their own cover saves. It also allows wounds caused by template weapons to ignore their cover saves, since they refer to wounds and NOT Wounds(W).

So in short and in reiteration. Vehicles DONT have Wounds, so Impaler Cannons don't ignore their cover saves.

This is all incorrect, because you are making a false distinction. There is only ever one thing meant by 'wound' in the BGB, namely the consequence of a hit which succeeds at wounding and is then not saved; there is no distinction ever drawn between 'wound' and 'Wound'. The Wounds characteristic on a model is an indication of exactly how many wounds the model can suffer before it dies (meaning how many wounding hits it can fail to save).

Furthermore, vehicles take saves against hits EXACTLY like other models take saves against wounds. . . which means that, as you are arguing that there is a situation in which vehicles and non-vehicle models take their saves differently, you're wrong. If vehicles and non-vehicle models save differently against this weapon, then the vehicles are not saving exactly like the other models, in which case you're breaking the rules.