The FAQ, Impaler Cannons, and Vehicle Cover.

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.

**wyomingfox**

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.

**Milisim**

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.

**kirsanth**

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.

**Milisim**

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....

**Murrdox**

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.

**drorain**

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

**Nate668**

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.

**rigeld2**

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?

**Milisim**

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....

**Happyjew**

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

**kirsanth**

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.

**rigeld2**

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.

**kirsanth**

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.

**BeRzErKeR**

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.

**Murrdox**

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

But the Impaler Cannon totally negates Invulnerable saves.

**rigeld2**

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...

**puma713**

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.

**Ghenghis Jon**

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.

**Murrdox**

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!

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

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.

**coredump**

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

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

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 ...?

**nosferatu1001**

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

**drorain**

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.

**Happyjew**

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.

**rigeld2**

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?

**nosferatu1001**

ORk armies generally want to move forwards, especially Kan wall

**THE_GODLYNESS**

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.

**time wizard**

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.

**Happyjew**

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?