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.

So, the Whirlwind's Castellan missiles and Thunderfire Cannon's airbust rounds both have the "Ignores Cover" rule, which states that no cover saves may be taken against wounds caused by these attacks. Am I correct in assuming that this means vehicles can still claim cover saves against glancing/penetrating hits from these weapons, as such hits are not wounds?

Strict RAW: yes
RAI: Not sure, probably no.

I would say no. Vehicle cover saves are taken '...exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.' (rulebook, page 62)

So while the weapons in question only specifically disallow cover saves for wounds, the cover save against the vehicle hit is treated the same as a wound. Specifically, the pen/glance is simply a replacement trigger for the save where vehicles are involved, and so would still be considered a 'wound' where relevant.

It's sloppy wording, but I would take it as allowing no cover saves at all.

Very strictly RaW I would say no the saves aren't ignored, vehicles are not wounded.
RaI I would say yes they are ignored, also if you tried to pull that RaW in a tournament, any TO I know would have smacked you upside the head with the rulebook & said "Don't be stupid"

insaniak wrote:I would say no. Vehicle cover saves are taken '...exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.' (rulebook, page 62)

So while the weapons in question only specifically disallow cover saves for wounds, the cover save against the vehicle hit is treated the same as a wound. Specifically, the pen/glance is simply a replacement trigger for the save where vehicles are involved, and so would still be considered a 'wound' where relevant.

It's sloppy wording, but I would take it as allowing no cover saves at all.

I agree with this reasoning.

I agree that no cover saves could be taken.

So if a vehicle is 50% in cover, it is obscured and gets a cover save.

A weapon that ignores cover hits the vehicle and no cover save is allowed for the obscured vehicle.

A vehicle that launches smoke, is obscured and gets a 4+ cover save.

Weapons that ignore cover saves would ignore smoke as well.

So here's the real question, do vehicles under a KFF get a save, or not?

BeRzErKeR wrote:So here's the real question, do vehicles under a KFF get a save, or not?

Thuderfire cannon: Ignores Cover: Cover saves can not be taken...

That seems pretty black and white to me. KFF grants a cover save, ignore cover disallows cover saves...

BeRzErKeR wrote:So here's the real question, do vehicles under a KFF get a save, or not?

I always wondered the same thing. Cover ignoring weapons deny cover from the weapon hiting from above or indirectly but the KFF has a forcefield bubble. I know the rules are clear and they don't get a save but it just dosent make sense that they ignore a force field .

insaniak wrote:I would say no. Vehicle cover saves are taken '...exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.' (rulebook, page 62)

So while the weapons in question only specifically disallow cover saves for wounds, the cover save against the vehicle hit is treated the same as a wound. Specifically, the pen/glance is simply a replacement trigger for the save where vehicles are involved, and so would still be considered a 'wound' where relevant.

It's sloppy wording, but I would take it as allowing no cover saves at all.

Which is a blatant rules change, like half of inat faq what do ya know ... lols

Well it is orks so it's a ghetto force field. It grants a cover save unlike other force fields taht typically grant an invulnerable save. That leads to believe that it is more of a deflection shield which would be less effective. Flak hitting a deflection shield would just slightly alter the path still allowing the shrapnel to hit it's intended targets.

In the case of Crack Shot Eldar, we are just that good ;D

kill dem stunties wrote:Which is a blatant rules change, like half of inat faq what do ya know ... lols

Sorry, you've lost me. What does my opinion on this rule have to do with the INAT FAQ?

Grimgob wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:So here's the real question, do vehicles under a KFF get a save, or not?

I always wondered the same thing. Cover ignoring weapons deny cover from the weapon hiting from above or indirectly but the KFF has a forcefield bubble. I know the rules are clear and they don't get a save but it just dosent make sense that they ignore a force field .

That sort of falls into the same hole as the 'Can walkers pivot at the waist' issue... The rules have to strike a balance between 'relatively simple' and 'needlessly convoluted'... Where the ideal prefered balance point is will vary from player to player. In this instance, though, the designers decided to simply lump all Cover saves into the same category. No distinction is made for cover from a bush and cover from a forcefield... they both follow the same rules.

insaniak wrote:
That sort of falls into the same hole as the 'Can walkers pivot at the waist' issue... The rules have to strike a balance between 'relatively simple' and 'needlessly convoluted'... Where the ideal prefered balance point is will vary from player to player. In this instance, though, the designers decided to simply lump all Cover saves into the same category. No distinction is made for cover from a bush and cover from a forcefield... they both follow the same rules.

Unless we're talking about barrage weapons landing on top of you, which a hedge wouldn't provide cover from but the kff would.

heh sorry i was in rant mode against inat again because of a guy at my flgs demanding to use it at the next escalation league, so i wont be attending that, well, that and you always 100% sheeple style follow the inat >.>

kill dem stunties wrote:... well, that and you always 100% sheeple style follow the inat >.>

That would be an impressive feat, given that I've never actually read it.

I have no need for the INAT, so never bothered with it.

Gorkamorka wrote:

insaniak wrote:
That sort of falls into the same hole as the 'Can walkers pivot at the waist' issue... The rules have to strike a balance between 'relatively simple' and 'needlessly convoluted'... Where the ideal prefered balance point is will vary from player to player. In this instance, though, the designers decided to simply lump all Cover saves into the same category. No distinction is made for cover from a bush and cover from a forcefield... they both follow the same rules.

Unless we're talking about barrage weapons landing on top of you, which a hedge wouldn't provide cover from but the kff would.

Maybe. But the KFF provides a cover save for infantry and vehicles are treated as obscured. So anything that ignores cover saves ignores KFF. Perhaps it isn't a sphere, and is more of a cylinder. Perhaps it just moves the bits around a little. Or perhaps it doesn't have any effect on fire or whatever.

Which means that the local orc player finally has a weakness!

headrattle wrote:
Maybe. But the KFF provides a cover save for infantry and vehicles are treated as obscured. So anything that ignores cover saves ignores KFF.

Which means that the local orc player finally has a weakness!

This has been the case since the new codex came out, but there are better weaknesses to exploit against an ork player. IIRC the previous codex had the KFF giving an invuln save. Alot of ork players I know were used to this being the rule and forget that it is now a cover save and can be ignored or, in the case of Tau, modified.

kill dem stunties wrote:heh sorry i was in rant mode against inat again because of a guy at my flgs demanding to use it at the next escalation league, so i wont be attending that, well, that and you always 100% sheeple style follow the inat >.>

Your post is very assumptive and lacks foresight. Telling someone that they are a sheep is an insult, and insulting a mod seems like a bad plan. How do you know how this person plays?

Moreover, it seems to me that people claiming everything in the FAQ listed as clarifications are actually rules changes are unaware or refuse to acknowledge that some rules can be interpreted in multiple different ways - which are equally grammatically correct.

RAI yes, wouldn't really make sense otherwise.

Elnicko5 wrote:IIRC the previous codex had the KFF giving an invuln save. Alot of ork players I know were used to this being the rule and forget that it is now a cover save and can be ignored or, in the case of Tau, modified.

Nope. The 3ed Ork Codex KFF gave a 5+ cover saves to all models (not units) within 6", vehicles were hull down.

Wow this got off track fast, and insulting as well lol.

Just to add another one to the pile, Id say yes if it ignores cover saves, then in my thinking it ignores all cover saves, vehicles, troops, its all ignored. Same for the KFF, which grants a cover save, even a vehicle being obscured is using a cover save, so a KFF will be ignored as well. Its that cut and dry in my head

When this comes into play, I ask why would someone target a S4 (or 5 for thunderfire cannon) at a tank. Seems like a waste of time...

Drop pod meltaguns FTW!

Cause trukks are AV 10.....? Besides, I use a Colossus, ST6 and ingores cover.

Then use a Basilisk. It's cheaper and is S9 AP3.

But a Basilisk does not ignore cover................... And the Colossus is also AP 3

Yes but...

He has a 1/2 chance of failing a cover save on a Basilisk but you have a 1/3 chance of penetrating with a Colossus... combine that with a high points value and the fact that it can't fire directly makes a Basilisk the obvious choice...

You forget that the Colossus is ordnance. The colossus is about 7% more likely to get a penetrating hit and have it stick.

So is the basilisk.

True, but it isn't enough to swing the probability in the Basilisk's favor.

Chance of hit penetrating and sticking with Basilisk:
(1-1/6*1/6)*(1/2) = 48.6%

Chance of hit penetrating and sticking with Colossus:
(1-4/6*4/6)*(1) = 55.6%