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 new FAQ has this tidbit

Q: Do psychic shooting attacks grant cover saves? (p50)
A: Yes, as long as they cause wounds. Cover saves are
taken against wounds caused by psychic shooting attacks,
not against any other ‘weirder’ effects of the psychic
power.



So purely RAW from this, vehicles cannot get cover from psychic shooting attacks?

They can, as they ignore pen/glancing hits in the same way as wounds.

Purely by what the FAQ question says, they can't. It specifically says cover saves from PSA can only be taken against wounds.

Now, I think that is a clear oversight, so I'm not going to play it that way. But that's what it says.

I was thinking it was an oversight but when I read it, it sounds clear that they can ONLY take cover saves from wounds if its a PSA. Hoping that this is changed. It will be hard to pick and choose what you want to use out of the FAQ. If you ignore this you will basically need to ignore the whole thing.

1) This is not new. This was in the old FAQ too.

2) The rules for vehicles say that cover saves are taken the same way as against wounds.

3) The new FAQ is a massive steaming pile, so just ignore it. It will make your games a lot better.

Taken in the same way as wounds is well and good, but just says how to take a cover save. According to the FAQ, Cover saves can only be taken against PSA if they are an actual wound. No where is BRB does it say to treat glance/penetrating hits as wounds, just you save in the same way.

To me this is a specific rule overriding normal cover saves for vehicles. Though it is a stupid one. My problem is you cannot use some FAQ rulings and not others. My FLGS goes by FAQ.

Sure you can. What's wrong with using some and not others? For instance, we don't play deffrollas as causing hits against skimmers who dodge just because they stopped the tank shock. We read that as being in reference to the DoG and not skimmers. Around here we tend to apply the rules as closely as possible to what it says, but if there is a clear oversight there doesn't seem to be a problem with making our own amendments.

Imho that faq reference meant that you can use saves against PSA and not something like Lash. Its not something like people wanna see (ie oh gosh you cant cover saves for vehicles now! zomg i gonna go and shoot myself)

penek wrote:Imho that faq reference meant that you can use saves against PSA and not something like Lash. Its not something like people wanna see (ie oh gosh you cant cover saves for vehicles now! zomg i gonna go and shoot myself)

You mean ones that cause wounds?

The FAQ wrote:A: Yes, as long as they cause wounds

yes i mean that)
is it just clarify that you can't take saves against something like Lash.. and doesnt say that you can't have cover saves against PSA "that cause wounds"

"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 (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a
building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). If the save is
passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the
Vehicle Damage table." p62, BRB

So, in order to take a cover save as a vehicle, it must be glancing or penetrating, which then you may take a cover save against in the same way that infantry do - as in, you roll a save and if passed, discard it. However, it does not say that glancing/penetrating hits are equivalent to wounds or treated as wounds.

That being said, RAW, you do not get a cover save against PSA against vehicles.

Melchiour wrote:My problem is you cannot use some FAQ rulings and not others.

Of course you can, some parts of the FAQ make sence, and some don't. Take this new addition.


Q: What happens when a vehicle tank shocks a unit that is
already falling back? (p68)
A: The tank shock will be resolved in the usual manor.
Note that passing the Moral check for a tank shock will not
cause the unit to regroup it will just prevent them from
fleeing again.


Except that the rulls for falling back clearly state you auto-fail all Morale tests except to regroup. This part of the FAQ may as well have been written by someone who never played before. Thats why my store already decided to ignore it.

Veldrain, that clause is there for the odd unit that is capable of passing any morale test, even if failure is normally automatic.

Melchiour wrote:So the new FAQ has this tidbit

Q: Do psychic shooting attacks grant cover saves? (p50)
A: Yes, as long as they cause wounds. Cover saves are
taken against wounds caused by psychic shooting attacks,
not against any other ‘weirder’ effects of the psychic
power.



So purely RAW from this, vehicles cannot get cover from psychic shooting attacks?

As long as a power can potentially cause wounds then armor saves can theoretically be made against that power. Just because a pyschic shooting attack is being made against a vehicle doesn't change whether or not the power can theoretically cause wounds, and if it can, then it has the potential to allow covers saves against it.

Once again, people are reading FAQ questions and answers as if they are rules (which they're not) instead of referencing the rules in question and why the question is being asked and answered.