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.

Stealth and Shrouded have no effect against Barrage weapons, as they are always considered to be fired from the center of the blast marker.

The distance and direction of the shot is calculated from the blast center. If you hit a squadron of vehicles and cause damage tomore than one vehicle, you still begin allocation from the model closest to the center of the blast.

You cannot effectively misdirect a weapon that hit you by chance from less than 2 inches away.

Area terrain, fortified or otherwise, will provide cover as the physical nature of the cover actually takes the impact.

In 5th edition we always played that DP's don't give any protection from Barrage weapons. They're particularly indiscriminate weapons that really don't care that much if they're on target or not, and so it's perfectly viable to lob a few shots into that 'hazy distorted area' where a DP is.

 Idolator wrote:
Stealth and Shrouded have no effect against Barrage weapons, as they are always considered to be fired from the center of the blast marker.

That's an overly broad statement. In a Night Fight scenario that would be true. The stealth and shrouded rules can, in and of themselves, grant cover saves in the appropriate situation. They can also modify a cover save granted by something else. In the case of disruption pods, they can modify the cover save granted by the jink rule.

This is the issue being discussed in this thread. A Tau vehicle that moved gets the jink 5+ cover save. Barrage won't deny that save since it has nothing to do range or direction. Does that cover save get modified by the stealth and shrouded rules conferred by the disruption pod if the firer is more than 12" away? By the strictest RAW interpretation already presented here it seems that it does.

 Idolator wrote:
Stealth and Shrouded have no effect against Barrage weapons, as they are always considered to be fired from the center of the blast marker.

The distance and direction of the shot is calculated from the blast center. If you hit a squadron of vehicles and cause damage tomore than one vehicle, you still begin allocation from the model closest to the center of the blast.

You cannot effectively misdirect a weapon that hit you by chance from less than 2 inches away.

Area terrain, fortified or otherwise, will provide cover as the physical nature of the cover actually takes the impact.

Stealth grants a cover save if you are in the open seeing as there is no actual cover to address wounded models would always be able to take the 6+ (though on a vehicle the +1 would still count as they are never wounded). This is also true of other cover saves granted by a special rule (turbo boosters, psychic powers etc) that have no definable terrain piece. Shrouded applies the bonus even if you don't get to use it. Say we barrage a unit of infantry was shrouded but had no granted cover save (as exampled above) or cover save from terrain between the center hole and the models. They would still be shrouded, they just don't get a cover save to improve.

In this case however as the model in question is not being wounded it take the hit on its side armour and is allowed any cover save granted from the angel of the firer, not the center hole. This cover save is then improved by the shrouded rule. If the Vehicle in question has stealth as well, it would improve the cover save further.

 Bausk wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Stealth and Shrouded have no effect against Barrage weapons, as they are always considered to be fired from the center of the blast marker.

The distance and direction of the shot is calculated from the blast center. If you hit a squadron of vehicles and cause damage tomore than one vehicle, you still begin allocation from the model closest to the center of the blast.

You cannot effectively misdirect a weapon that hit you by chance from less than 2 inches away.

Area terrain, fortified or otherwise, will provide cover as the physical nature of the cover actually takes the impact.

Stealth grants a cover save if you are in the open seeing as there is no actual cover to address wounded models would always be able to take the 6+ (though on a vehicle the +1 would still count as they are never wounded). This is also true of other cover saves granted by a special rule (turbo boosters, psychic powers etc) that have no definable terrain piece. Shrouded applies the bonus even if you don't get to use it. Say we barrage a unit of infantry was shrouded but had no granted cover save (as exampled above) or cover save from terrain between the center hole and the models. They would still be shrouded, they just don't get a cover save to improve.

In this case however as the model in question is not being wounded it take the hit on its side armour and is allowed any cover save granted from the angel of the firer, not the center hole. This cover save is then improved by the shrouded rule. If the Vehicle in question has stealth as well, it would improve the cover save further.

We are talking about barrage weapons here. The shot is considered as fired from the center of the blast. Which is less than 12" away.

Since you mention that vehicles are always hit on side armor, regardless of the firers position, you cannot take the firers position into consideration for other aspects of the shot.

 Idolator wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Stealth and Shrouded have no effect against Barrage weapons, as they are always considered to be fired from the center of the blast marker.

The distance and direction of the shot is calculated from the blast center. If you hit a squadron of vehicles and cause damage tomore than one vehicle, you still begin allocation from the model closest to the center of the blast.

You cannot effectively misdirect a weapon that hit you by chance from less than 2 inches away.

Area terrain, fortified or otherwise, will provide cover as the physical nature of the cover actually takes the impact.

Stealth grants a cover save if you are in the open seeing as there is no actual cover to address wounded models would always be able to take the 6+ (though on a vehicle the +1 would still count as they are never wounded). This is also true of other cover saves granted by a special rule (turbo boosters, psychic powers etc) that have no definable terrain piece. Shrouded applies the bonus even if you don't get to use it. Say we barrage a unit of infantry was shrouded but had no granted cover save (as exampled above) or cover save from terrain between the center hole and the models. They would still be shrouded, they just don't get a cover save to improve.

In this case however as the model in question is not being wounded it take the hit on its side armour and is allowed any cover save granted from the angel of the firer, not the center hole. This cover save is then improved by the shrouded rule. If the Vehicle in question has stealth as well, it would improve the cover save further.

We are talking about barrage weapons here. The shot is considered as fired from the center of the blast. Which is less than 12" away.

Since you mention that vehicles are always hit on side armor, regardless of the firers position, you cannot take the firers position into consideration for other aspects of the shot.

Reread the rules for barrage (I made a mistake by skimming earlier today). As the barrage rule states the center of the blast is considered where the shot is coming from , as in direction which is mutually exclusive to range and weapon fired. Further more the center is only considered when models are wounded not glanced or penetrated. The only applicable statement for the OP is the last line of the second bullet point; "Hits against vehicles are always resolved against their side armour".

 Idolator wrote:


Since you mention that vehicles are always hit on side armor, regardless of the firers position, you cannot take the firers position into consideration for other aspects of the shot.

The side armor mechanic doesn't mean that vehicles are actually hit on their sides. It simulates the round striking the top of the vehicle.

 Bausk wrote:
[ Further more the center is only considered when models are wounded not glanced or penetrated.

And again - those statements are equivalent in 6th. It was implied in 5th.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
[ Further more the center is only considered when models are wounded not glanced or penetrated.

And again - those statements are equivalent in 6th. It was implied in 5th.

I can give you a page for 5th if you like but its not the current rule set and has no bearing on the conversation (hint: its the to wound section again)

Page and rule backing up your statement that two separate mechanics are equivalent to being the same?

I mean it is kind of part of this forum, backing up ones statements with actual rules found in the game.

 Bausk wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
[ Further more the center is only considered when models are wounded not glanced or penetrated.

And again - those statements are equivalent in 6th. It was implied in 5th.

I can give you a page for 5th if you like but its not the current rule set and has no bearing on the conversation (hint: its the to wound section again)

Page and rule backing up your statement that two separate mechanics are equivalent to being the same?

I mean it is kind of part of this forum, backing up ones statements with actual rules found in the game.

The mechanics are different. But when a rule mentions wounds, it also means glance/pens. Hive Guard is one example of this.
When I wake up in the morning ill cite page numbers.
Edit: Invulnerable saves on vehicles for another.

 Bausk wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
[ Further more the center is only considered when models are wounded not glanced or penetrated.

And again - those statements are equivalent in 6th. It was implied in 5th.

I can give you a page for 5th if you like but its not the current rule set and has no bearing on the conversation (hint: its the to wound section again)

Page and rule backing up your statement that two separate mechanics are equivalent to being the same?

I mean it is kind of part of this forum, backing up ones statements with actual rules found in the game.

Just to make sure that I understand you.

You state that a barrage weapon is considered to be fired from the center of the template every time, except when it hits a vehicle.

The real problem of your argument comes in when a Barrage weapon fires and hits a vehicle that is out of sight behind a ruin. It would mean that the targeted vehicle would receive a 2+ cover save, from a barrage weapon that fired over interviening terrain!

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
[ Further more the center is only considered when models are wounded not glanced or penetrated.

And again - those statements are equivalent in 6th. It was implied in 5th.

I can give you a page for 5th if you like but its not the current rule set and has no bearing on the conversation (hint: its the to wound section again)

Page and rule backing up your statement that two separate mechanics are equivalent to being the same?

I mean it is kind of part of this forum, backing up ones statements with actual rules found in the game.

The mechanics are different. But when a rule mentions wounds, it also means glance/pens. Hive Guard is one example of this.
When I wake up in the morning ill cite page numbers.
Edit: Invulnerable saves on vehicles for another.

One; Nothing in the Hive Guard entry (page 47 of Codex nids) nor the current errata/FAQ support your statement in the slightest. And the type of attack has no bearing on the present conversation.

Two; Invulnerable saves and cover saves are two different types of save. Bjorn for example is always able to take their invulnerable save against any glancing or penetrating hit, as it specifies as such in the ward of the primarch SR on page 49 of codex space wolves, unless the hit ignores Invulnerable saves. In such a situation if bjorn is in cover when he it hit said attack that ignores invulnerable saves he may take a cover save instead.

Just the same as template weapons don't ignore invulnerable saves because they ignore cover saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
[ Further more the center is only considered when models are wounded not glanced or penetrated.

And again - those statements are equivalent in 6th. It was implied in 5th.

I can give you a page for 5th if you like but its not the current rule set and has no bearing on the conversation (hint: its the to wound section again)

Page and rule backing up your statement that two separate mechanics are equivalent to being the same?

I mean it is kind of part of this forum, backing up ones statements with actual rules found in the game.

Just to make sure that I understand you.

You state that a barrage weapon is considered to be fired from the center of the template every time, except when it hits a vehicle.

When you are determining if a model with a Toughness value has cover or not, yes. When determining how far the target unit is from the model that fired the weapon (IE for shrouded etc), no. When firing any barrage weapon at a vehicle only pay attention to the last sentence of the second bullet point in barrage, the rest of the information listed in the second bullet point has no effect on vehicles.

The Hive Guard issue is the Impaler Cannon.

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.

Note it says "wounds". But the rule is applied to Vehicles as well.

You state that a barrage weapon is considered to be fired from the center of the template every time, except when it hits a vehicle.

This is incorrect. The range is from the Firing Unit. The center hole is ONLY used to determine whether the target gets a cover save, and determining Wound Allocation for closest model. Those are the two specific instances where you use that center hole.

Fragile wrote:
The Hive Guard issue is the Impaler Cannon.

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.

Note it says "wounds". But the rule is applied to Vehicles as well.

You state that a barrage weapon is considered to be fired from the center of the template every time, except when it hits a vehicle.

This is incorrect. The range is from the Firing Unit. The center hole is ONLY used to determine whether the target gets a cover save, and determining Wound Allocation for closest model. Those are the two specific instances where you use that center hole.

Look one page higher as vehicles are covered with a question previous to it;

Q: Can a model take a cover save from wargear such as smoke launchers or an ork custom force field against shooting attacks made by a a hive guard impaler cannon?
A: No

And the jink one is worded with 'shooting attacks' also as both models with Toughness values and Armour values can use the USR Jink.

Then some one please explain to me how you would work out a barrage weapon hitting three vehicles in a squadron.

This argument appears to be for arguments sake. We all know that the shot comes from the center of the blast. It's the nature of the weapon itself.

I'm done with this.

We all know how it's intended to work.

If the blast hits 3 vehicles, you roll 3 rolls to attempt to penetrate armor. If you succeed, you apply those Pen/Glances to the closest vehicle to the hole one at a time. If you destroy it, you move on to the next one.

 Idolator wrote:
Then some one please explain to me how you would work out a barrage weapon hitting three vehicles in a squadron.

This argument appears to be for arguments sake. We all know that the shot comes from the center of the blast. It's the nature of the weapon itself.

I'm done with this.

We all know how it's intended to work.

Gladly; you apply any glancing or penetrating hits on the vehicle closest to the model that fired the shot,. Following the rules for shooting blast weapons at vehicles (page73),. the rules for vehicle squadrons (page 77), the rules for blast weapons (page 33) and barrage weapons (page34). As there is no statement that the center is use as the direction of fire when barrage weapons are used against vehicles the effects are as per blast weapons as barrage weapons follow the same rules as blast weapons.

As blast marker are full strength out to the edge in 6th the center of blast is less important for vehicles. Which is probably why its no longer important for barrage either.


That may or may not be the RAI but it sure as heck isn't the RAW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
If the blast hits 3 vehicles, you roll 3 rolls to attempt to penetrate armor. If you succeed, you apply those Pen/Glances to the closest vehicle to the hole one at a time. If you destroy it, you move on to the next one.

Where in the BRB does it explicitly state to apply the glancing or penetrating hits to the closest vehicle to the center hole. Page and quote please.

 Bausk wrote:


Look one page higher as vehicles are covered with a question previous to it;

Q: Can a model take a cover save from wargear such as smoke launchers or an ork custom force field against shooting attacks made by a a hive guard impaler cannon?
A: No

And the jink one is worded with 'shooting attacks' also as both models with Toughness values and Armour values can use the USR Jink.

So they can take a cover save from normal terrain, just not from smoke launchers?

BRB page 75 wrote:If the target 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.

BRB page 82 wrote:Sweep Attacks can be Precision Strikes (see page 63)and no cover saves are allowed against Wounds, glancing hits and penetrating hits caused by a Sweep Attack.

BRB page 17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect. Even if a Wound ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable saving throw can still be taken.

What you're saying will mean that vehicles can take cover saves against Hive Guard using terrain but not smoke saves, vehicles cannot use invulnerable saves without an FAQ (sorry SoB), and other issues that have been brought up before but I'm too lazy to find right now.

In short, this argument is incorrect.

 Bausk wrote:
[Where in the BRB does it explicitly state to apply the glancing or penetrating hits to the closest vehicle to the center hole. Page and quote please.

Wound allocation is determined from the center of the hole. Barrage pg 34.

Also please show me where a Blast can affect a vehicle as the B&LB rules only state they cause "Wounds".

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


Look one page higher as vehicles are covered with a question previous to it;

Q: Can a model take a cover save from wargear such as smoke launchers or an ork custom force field against shooting attacks made by a a hive guard impaler cannon?
A: No

And the jink one is worded with 'shooting attacks' also as both models with Toughness values and Armour values can use the USR Jink.

So they can take a cover save from normal terrain, just not from smoke launchers?

BRB page 75 wrote:If the target 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.

BRB page 82 wrote:Sweep Attacks can be Precision Strikes (see page 63)and no cover saves are allowed against Wounds, glancing hits and penetrating hits caused by a Sweep Attack.

BRB page 17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect. Even if a Wound ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable saving throw can still be taken.

What you're saying will mean that vehicles can take cover saves against Hive Guard using terrain but not smoke saves, vehicles cannot use invulnerable saves without an FAQ (sorry SoB), and other issues that have been brought up before but I'm too lazy to find right now.

In short, this argument is incorrect.

Yes, if the vehicle may take cover saves from shots fired if they fill the criteria listed on Page 47 of the nid codex. No they may not take cover saves granted by smoke launchers or similar cover saves granted in the same manner as stated in the FAQ.

Every rule you list there does not say that they are treated the same in every situation, just the specific situations that its outlined. You will also note that in every example, bar the invulnerable save, they list both mechanics specifically. In the rules for shred, it is only wound. in the rules for tank hunters, it is only glancing and penetrating. In the rules for the center hole of the blast marker in barrage, its only wounds.

Again, where in the rule book does it explicitly state that wounds ALWAYS also means glancing and penetrating? I'd like to know so I can field me some Thunder wolf cav with wolf claws and Blackmane for FC. Love me some of that S6+D6 with re rolls to glance and penetrate. *Add sarcasm*

In the case of Invulnerable saves, it does not explicitly state glancing or penetrating hits as in most circumstances vehicles don't get them. Bjorn is the exception to the rule, as may be the SoB rule you mentioned, as ward of the primarch specificly states he may take it for glancing and penetrating hits he is allowed to use his invulnerable save. I don't have my White dwarf handy for the SoB question, would you care to clarify which SoB invulnerable save you are refering to? Specific wording would be nice too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
[Where in the BRB does it explicitly state to apply the glancing or penetrating hits to the closest vehicle to the center hole. Page and quote please.

Wound allocation is determined from the center of the hole. Barrage pg 34.

Also please show me where a Blast can affect a vehicle as the B&LB rules only state they cause "Wounds".

They don't only cause wounds, I never said they only cause wounds. Just that exactly as you quoted, you only use the center hole for direction of shot for the purposes of cover and wound allocation when dealing with models that have a toughness value. The reason being is they can be wounded, a vehicle with an armour value cannot be wounded. Instead, refer to the all relevant rules on the pages I listed previously and resolve the shot on the side armour from the direction of the firer. As the blast is now full strength out to the edge of the marker you roll full strength +D6 (or 2D6) for armour penetration even if the vehicle is only under a millimeter of the blast marker.

 Bausk wrote:
Every rule you list there does not say that they are treated the same in every situation, just the specific situations that its outlined. You will also note that in every example, bar the invulnerable save, they list both mechanics specifically. In the rules for shred, it is only wound. in the rules for tank hunters, it is only glancing and penetrating. In the rules for the center hole of the blast marker in barrage, its only wounds.

Congrats. You've rendered Flickerfields literally useless, SoB's 6+ invuls on their vehicles useless, and other mechanics in the game useless as well.

Again, where in the rule book does it explicitly state that wounds ALWAYS also means glancing and penetrating? I'd like to know so I can field me some Thunder wolf cav with wolf claws and Blackmane for FC. Love me some of that S6+D6 with re rolls to glance and penetrate. *Add sarcasm*

I don't see why there'd be sarcasm. Go for it. Tank Hunters is still better for hunting tanks.

In the case of Invulnerable saves, it does not explicitly state glancing or penetrating hits as in most circumstances vehicles don't get them. Bjorn is the exception to the rule

Actually he'd be ... interesting. Invulnerable saves ignore Wounds. Sure, he can take an invul save against a glance/penetrating hit - but what happens? Do you ignore it?
Cite evidence please. Remember, according to you, you cannot use any evidence that includes Wounds.

, as may be the SoB rule you mentioned, as ward of the primarch specificly states he may take it for glancing and penetrating hits he is allowed to use his invulnerable save. I don't have my White dwarf handy for the SoB question, would you care to clarify which SoB invulnerable save you are refering to? Specific wording would be nice too.

I don't have the WD either, I just recall that SoB vehicles have an inherent 6+ invul save that's worded like a flickerfield iirc.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Every rule you list there does not say that they are treated the same in every situation, just the specific situations that its outlined. You will also note that in every example, bar the invulnerable save, they list both mechanics specifically. In the rules for shred, it is only wound. in the rules for tank hunters, it is only glancing and penetrating. In the rules for the center hole of the blast marker in barrage, its only wounds.

Congrats. You've rendered Flickerfields literally useless, SoB's 6+ invuls on their vehicles useless, and other mechanics in the game useless as well.

Again, where in the rule book does it explicitly state that wounds ALWAYS also means glancing and penetrating? I'd like to know so I can field me some Thunder wolf cav with wolf claws and Blackmane for FC. Love me some of that S6+D6 with re rolls to glance and penetrate. *Add sarcasm*

I don't see why there'd be sarcasm. Go for it. Tank Hunters is still better for hunting tanks.

In the case of Invulnerable saves, it does not explicitly state glancing or penetrating hits as in most circumstances vehicles don't get them. Bjorn is the exception to the rule

Actually he'd be ... interesting. Invulnerable saves ignore Wounds. Sure, he can take an invul save against a glance/penetrating hit - but what happens? Do you ignore it?
Cite evidence please. Remember, according to you, you cannot use any evidence that includes Wounds.

, as may be the SoB rule you mentioned, as ward of the primarch specificly states he may take it for glancing and penetrating hits he is allowed to use his invulnerable save. I don't have my White dwarf handy for the SoB question, would you care to clarify which SoB invulnerable save you are refering to? Specific wording would be nice too.

I don't have the WD either, I just recall that SoB vehicles have an inherent 6+ invul save that's worded like a flickerfield iirc.

I didn't render them near useless, 6th ed did.Just the way 6th has its RAW then it sucks to be either if that's the case, mind you flicker fields can be used against immobilsed result's caused by dangerous terrain tests according to the FAQ. RAI and how i'd play flicker fields however is they get the invuln, its cruel to penalise them for terrible phrasing.

The sarcasm was because wounds and armour penetration are not the same thing in the majority of cases, fact as previously proven with cited rules.

The exact phrasing for Ward of the Primarch is; "Famously resilient, Bjorn has a 5+ Invulnerable saving throw against any glancing or penetrating hits inflicted upon him." Codex over rules the BRB and his phrasing for his special rule over rules Invulnerable save when applied to him. (page 49 for those just tuning in)

Without the specific phrasing of the SoB rule I can't say one way or another. Perhaps tomorrow when I dig my WD out.

 Bausk wrote:
I didn't render them near useless, 6th ed did.

Actually, 5th ed had the same wording. In case you weren't aware.

The exact phrasing for Ward of the Primarch is; "Famously resilient, Bjorn has a 5+ Invulnerable saving throw against any glancing or penetrating hits inflicted upon him." Codex over rules the BRB and his phrasing for his special rule over rules Invulnerable save when applied to him. (page 49 for those just tuning in)

Yes, he can use the invul save to remove Wounds from those glancing and penetrating hits, since that's what Invul saves do.

1. In the case of disruption pods vs ordnance barrage isn't it a case of basic vs advanced on pg7 and it says.
On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.

2. I know a vehicle can't take a cover save vs a impaler cannon unless it is in cover, so wouldn't a tau vehicle benifet from disruption pods in area terrain because it's improving a existing cover save from the terrian if it's over 12 away.

 Puretide1 wrote:
1. In the case of disruption pods vs ordnance barrage isn't it a case of basic vs advanced on pg7 and it says.
On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.

2. I know a vehicle can't take a cover save vs a impaler cannon unless it is in cover, so wouldn't a tau vehicle benifet from disruption pods in area terrain because it's improving a existing cover save from the terrian if it's over 12 away.

1) Not really, there is no conflict between the rules for disruption pods and the BRB. In the Barrage vs vehicles case the RAW is in the BRB and has no conflict with a codex or itself. Vehicles are always struck on the side armour and may take cover saves from the direction of the shooting model. if in a squadron you apply hits to vehicles closest to the shooting model.

2) A Tau vehicle, any vehicle for that matter, that is allowed a cover save from an impaler cannon or barrage weapon may improve it with wargear, via night fighting or any other means. They just cant receive one from wargear etc. The impaler cannon rules don't deny improving the cover save you get, they just limit cover save availability.


Additionally, (off point) the BRB states the rules for Invulnerable save, specifying wounds. The DE dex states only that Flicker fields grant the vehicle an invulnerable save, not that it alters the rules for an invulnerable save to be tanked against glancing and penetrating attacks. Again, I would play it as intended and let them take the invulnerable save anyway. That does not mean I view the RAW as such,. IF I was a DE player I would be hammering GW for an FAQ/Errata on that to avoid situations where people won't let them take it due to the RAW.

I know this was not your point but its worth mentioning for clarification. There is a reason they (wounding and amrour penetration) are treated and used as different mechanics in most circumstances; They are different. If GW wanted to use the same mechanic for toughness and armour values then they would have just given vehicles a toughness value.

 Bausk wrote:
[hey don't only cause wounds, I never said they only cause wounds. Just that exactly as you quoted, you only use the center hole for direction of shot for the purposes of cover and wound allocation when dealing with models that have a toughness value. The reason being is they can be wounded, a vehicle with an armour value cannot be wounded. Instead, refer to the all relevant rules on the pages I listed previously and resolve the shot on the side armour from the direction of the firer. As the blast is now full strength out to the edge of the marker you roll full strength +D6 (or 2D6) for armour penetration even if the vehicle is only under a millimeter of the blast marker.

You misread. The B&LB rules state that you roll to Wound and save as normal for the hits under the marker. There is no mention of glance/pen there, so by your interpretation, vehicles cannot be damaged by blast weapons.

Yes, if the vehicle may take cover saves from shots fired if they fill the criteria listed on Page 47 of the nid codex

You avoided the question. If a vehicle is in the open but is 25% obscured by a building. Do you get a cover save from the Impaler cannon?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
I didn't render them near useless, 6th ed did.

Actually, 5th ed had the same wording. In case you weren't aware.

The exact phrasing for Ward of the Primarch is; "Famously resilient, Bjorn has a 5+ Invulnerable saving throw against any glancing or penetrating hits inflicted upon him." Codex over rules the BRB and his phrasing for his special rule over rules Invulnerable save when applied to him. (page 49 for those just tuning in)

Yes, he can use the invul save to remove Wounds from those glancing and penetrating hits, since that's what Invul saves do.

Even so, Ward of the Primarch was created in 5th, for 5th. Not my fault GW makes broken rules.

Your missing the point where the codex rule over rides the BRB's. It states clearly he make take an invulnerable save against glancing and penetrating hits specifically against himself. Not wounds inflicted against him.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
[hey don't only cause wounds, I never said they only cause wounds. Just that exactly as you quoted, you only use the center hole for direction of shot for the purposes of cover and wound allocation when dealing with models that have a toughness value. The reason being is they can be wounded, a vehicle with an armour value cannot be wounded. Instead, refer to the all relevant rules on the pages I listed previously and resolve the shot on the side armour from the direction of the firer. As the blast is now full strength out to the edge of the marker you roll full strength +D6 (or 2D6) for armour penetration even if the vehicle is only under a millimeter of the blast marker.

You misread. The B&LB rules state that you roll to Wound and save as normal for the hits under the marker. There is no mention of glance/pen there, so by your interpretation, vehicles cannot be damaged by blast weapons.

Yes, if the vehicle may take cover saves from shots fired if they fill the criteria listed on Page 47 of the nid codex

You avoided the question. If a vehicle is in the open but is 25% obscured by a building. Do you get a cover save from the Impaler cannon?

Whats the B&LB? I'll assume you mean BRB s it makes much more sense. You misread, it states in the last sentence of that bullet point that quote "Hits against vehicles are always resolved against their side armour.", that would be page 34. Additionally, barrage weapons follow the same base rules as blast weapons (its in the first paragraph of Barrage weapons same page in fact). Nothing listed under blasts (that' page 33 btw) for the center hole rules being used against vehicles. Lets look under vehicles specifically shall we? Page 73 under the heading "shooting at vehicles; Blast weapons" details exactly how we should proceed in regards to vehicles.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is reading the rules.

B&&LB is Blasts and Large Blasts.

Happyjew wrote:
B&&LB is Blasts and Large Blasts.

Fair nuff. Ace, vehicles are have their own rules for dealing with blasts as listed on the relevant page above. I'm over quoting RAW and fact to someone (not yourself Happy) that can grasp that wounding and armour penetration are different mechanics unless stated otherwise.