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.

Hey.

This came up during a game last night.

Can you take cover saves from SAG if a is rolled??

regards ogard

You take cover saves against wounds caused

DOes a double 6 cause wounds? If "yes", then yes. If not, no.

I believe double 6s state the model is removed from the table. It says nothing about a wound being caused. Since there is no wound there is nothing that meets the criteria for granting a cover save.

Since for models the rule is that they are removed from the game, I would say no... they cant use a cover save to ignore it but that is only in the case of a wound, but against vehicles is an automatic penetrating HIT... I would allow it for vehicles

Vehciles are also units, so are still removed from the game...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vehciles are also units, so are still removed from the game...

Agreed. SAG double 6s is very poorly worded. It causes vehicles hit to be removed from the game and a penetrating hit. Very strange.

Coupled with the KFF giving a vehicle a cover save and obscurement, it really seems like Phil Kelly forgot that vehicles are units when he wrote this codex.

I read vehicles suffer a penetrating hit as an exclusion to the removed from play. It doesn't make sense you remove it and pen it. Otherwise where would the explosion from a Pen 6 take place? On the table or in the warp?

It isnt an exclusion, you perform both.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It isnt an exclusion, you perform both.

Ok That doesnt make sense... I mean, is clearly a bad wording but its only common sense to realize that the automatic penetrating hit is stated for vehicle units, otherwise the model is removed from play, "Any model hit by the gun this turn is removed from play. Vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit." it doesnt say "vehicles ALSO take an automatic penetrating hit" It's very clear to me...

And its very clear to me that Vehicles are Models, and therefore take both

nosferatu1001 wrote:And its very clear to me that Vehicles are Models, and therefore take both

There... you have a point.

And it is very clear to me that the phrase "vehicles take a penetrating hit" overrides the remove from play portion. If it didn't over ride it why would it be there?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:And it is very clear to me that the phrase "vehicles take a penetrating hit" overrides the remove from play portion. If it didn't over ride it why would it be there?

And... you have a point too! it really doesnt make sense! I mean what if the result of the penetrating hit is a crew shaken?? you will remove from the game a land raider for a crew shaken result??

But again... both points of view are valid. The wording is so bad that any interpretation can be correct.

Personally I'll go for the first one...

I prefer to go with the interpretation that benefits my opponent more than me with a rule written poorly. That way if it ever gets a FAQ that doesn't go my way I won't feel I cheated anyone. And if by chance it goes my way the weapon just became more powerful.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I prefer to go with the interpretation that benefits my opponent more than me with a rule written poorly. That way if it ever gets a FAQ that doesn't go my way I won't feel I cheated anyone. And if by chance it goes my way the weapon just became more powerful.

Exactly! you can always work the wording out of a rule to make it work for you (like me trying to fit nob bikers on a battlewagon... sweet...) but it will always cause conflict and its just no fun at all. The first interpretation removes from play only non-vehicle units and pen-hit vehicle units instead of removing both, I'd go for that one..

Grakmar wrote:
Coupled with the KFF giving a vehicle a cover save and obscurement, it really seems like Phil Kelly forgot that vehicles are units when he wrote this codex.

Agreed. The Ork codex seems to be written from the assumption that a "Unit" = any non-vehicle, while a "Vehicle" is anything with an AV instead of a Toughness score. There are several points in the codex that seem to describe what happens to "Units" and what happens to "Vehicles" as if they are separate terms.

Keeping that in mind, RAI means that Vehicles are not removed from play and suffer an automatic penetrating hit.

RAW means that they suffer a penetrating hit AND are removed from play.

RAW in my mind then means that if a transport is hit in such a way and suffers a "Wrecked" or "Explodes!" result, the troops inside have a chance to bail out before the SAG sucks the transport into the Warp. "Explodes!" of course also has the added benefit of exploding beforehand as well.

If the transport doesn't blow up though... well it's sucked into the Warp and the troops inside are simply lost.

And the Big Mek tries really hard to remember to push that button again!

Self editing unrelated remarks.

Murrdox wrote:
RAW in my mind then means that if a transport is hit in such a way and suffers a "Wrecked" or "Explodes!" result, the troops inside have a chance to bail out before the SAG sucks the transport into the Warp. "Explodes!" of course also has the added benefit of exploding beforehand as well.

If the transport doesn't blow up though... well it's sucked into the Warp and the troops inside are simply lost.

Hmmm good point there. If you interpret the rules that the vehicle also suffers a Penetrating hit then you would be required to resolve that. If you destroy the vehicle then the passengers either get out or are placed where it was and they get to stay on the table as the wreckage is sucked into the warp around them.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

Murrdox wrote:RAW in my mind then means that if a transport is hit in such a way and suffers a "Wrecked" or "Explodes!" result, the troops inside have a chance to bail out before the SAG sucks the transport into the Warp. "Explodes!" of course also has the added benefit of exploding beforehand as well.

If the transport doesn't blow up though... well it's sucked into the Warp and the troops inside are simply lost.

Hmmm good point there. If you interpret the rules that the vehicle also suffers a Penetrating hit then you would be required to resolve that. If you destroy the vehicle then the passengers either get out or are placed where it was and they get to stay on the table as the wreckage is sucked into the warp around them.

And that would follow the Rule of Cool to boot, IMO!