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 this may be a dumb question but I have to ask because the description of the ignore cover for hive guards is rather terrible and results in so much arguing I simply don't use them.

So my question today is if vehicles with smoke launchers or a skimmer moving fast gains their cover saves from an impaler cannon?

In the description it states they can take cover saves if the cover is between them and the hive guard..which is most cover, so if someone can give me an example of when that doesn't happen that would be great as well.

Yet in the Errata it states it must be terrain?

So do which is it? what would you rule it as, do they get their cover saves or is it ignored because it isn't terrain like the Errata states.

Trance_Phoenix wrote:So this may be a dumb question but I have to ask because the description of the ignore cover for hive guards is rather terrible and results in so much arguing I simply don't use them.

So my question today is if vehicles with smoke launchers or a skimmer moving fast gains their cover saves from an impaler cannon?

In the description it states they can take cover saves if the cover is between them and the hive guard..which is most cover, so if someone can give me an example of when that doesn't happen that would be great as well.

Yet in the Errata it states it must be terrain?

So do which is it? what would you rule it as, do they get their cover saves or is it ignored because it isn't terrain like the Errata states.

Cover saves and flat out moves are ignored by the Impaler cannon. As is the KFF.

That's one interpretation the other is that vehicles don't take wounds. So kff smoke flat out still work.

To not start this debate again talk it over with your local gaming group so you know where they and you Stand.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:That's one interpretation the other is that vehicles don't take wounds. So kff smoke flat out still work.

...
That's a horrible interpretation. There are lots of places where wounds are equivalent to damage results. To say they aren't is incorrect.

To not start this debate again talk it over with your local gaming group so you know where they and you Stand.

Sure - gaming groups are free to house rule anything. That has nothing to do with the actual rules, however.

rigeld2 wrote:
Cover saves and flat out moves are ignored by the Impaler cannon. As is the KFF.

Isn't the Impaler cannon worded:

"Models may not benefit from cover they are in or touching unless lies between them and their target." Or something to that effect?

I would argue that Flat Out/KFF/Stormcaller/Shield of Sanguinus does not count as "cover they are in or touching". That those things expressly grant a cover save - it is not "cover they are in or touching".

I think there are two different ways of looking at this: cover, in the general sense, and cover, as in "terrain".

No cover unless it's from area terrain.

juraigamer wrote:No cover unless it's from area terrain.

I'm curious where you're reading this from.

It sounds to me like the sentence is referring to only the cover you're in or touching. A model that moved Flat Out is not "in or touching" any cover. It is a save that is granted via a special rule. I don't see how the Impaler Cannon's rule even applies to a model that is not "in or touching cover" at all.

Just because you have a cover save, doesn't mean you're "in or touching " cover, imo.

Edit: I'm not being argumentative. I'm willing to learn. I'm genuinely interested in where this reading is coming from.

puma713 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:No cover unless it's from area terrain.

I'm curious where you're reading this from.

It sounds to me like the sentence is referring to only the cover you're in or touching. A model that moved Flat Out is not "in or touching" any cover. It is a save that is granted via a special rule. I don't see how the Impaler Cannon's rule even applies to a model that is not "in or touching cover" at all.

Just because you have a cover save, doesn't mean you're "in or touching " cover, imo.

Edit: I'm not being argumentative. I'm willing to learn. I'm genuinely interested in where this reading is coming from.

The FAQ that says

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.

Yeah, just found that myself.

This is what happens at most games, the codex states cover they are in or touching, but this is the Errata entry.

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.

This is were I think most confusion starts and the arguments begin because in most cases both are arguable.

Well if you must.

Necron faq

Sweep attack.....

No cover saves may taken for wounds or penetrating / glancing hits

Seems to spell that out.

Tyranid faq

Impaler cannon

No cover saves taken by wounds caused.

Huh funny how they spell it out in one faq yet don't in another.

Must be since vehicles never take wounds impaler cannons don't ignore their cover.

Now tour going to quote the brb under the obscured vehicle section. But I said my part and it seems logical to me.

Yea, as far as I'm aware the FAQ update makes it so you have to be in or touching whatever is giving you cover in order to benefit from it when shot by the Impaler cannon. Given the lack of ranged anti-tank for Tyranids it doesn't seem totally unfair, though it does render 90% or more of the tactics for getting cover useless or risky. Especially for vehicles.

The_Godlyness - meaning you never get to use vcover saves on vehicles, as they take cover saves against penetrating / glancing hits exactly as if they were wounds.

You dont get one or the other. The rules are 100% clear on this.

Yet it begs the question of why in one faq its clearly written. But in another omitted.

If pen/glance was added to the tyranid faq there would be no question with out a shadow of a doubt. But they didn't.

Did the internet run out of ink and/or pixels?

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:Yet it begs the question of why in one faq its clearly written. But in another omitted.

If pen/glance was added to the tyranid faq there would be no question with out a shadow of a doubt. But they didn't.

Did the internet run out of ink and/or pixels?

It doesn't beg the question. It's implied - since wounds are equivalent to damage results, you don't get cover saves for vehicles either.

How about this - I have a rule that allows me to ignore cover saves. Prove you are exempt from that rule. (hint: you can't.)

No begging required. You are assuming the omission is deliberate

The rules are clear as day, you choose to play differently, aka a houserule

I don't know a nid player to play against. So its irrelevant.

Rather not try to convince you nor do my fingers have the time to text it out.

The only reason I can think for the statement of wounds in the errata and not stating a glancing or penetrating hit is because in the main codex it states

"The target can only benefit from cover it is in or touching if it lies between them and the hive guard."

which is incredibly arguable so in the errata they state what can count as cover which was terrain.

Problem is you would need to take both to formulate a rule for what counts as cover.

Seems pretty clear to me, no armour save.

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.

You cannot take a cover save from "ANY SOURCE" other than terrain you are in or touching. Smoke doesn't work. Skimmers moving flat-out doesn't work. Turbo-Boosting doesn't work.

It doesn't beg the question. It's implied - since wounds are equivalent to damage results, you don't get cover saves for vehicles either.

How about this - I have a rule that allows me to ignore cover saves. Prove you are exempt from that rule. (hint: you can't.)

The funny thing is the FAQ asks the wrong question and gets the wrong answer. That interpretation would require an errata for the Impaler cannon. As it is the cannon's own description mentions only cover, nothing about disallowing cover saves (something you might gain from cover) in general.

Not that it affects me - never seen Hive Guard anyway.

Spetulhu wrote:The funny thing is the FAQ asks the wrong question and gets the wrong answer. That interpretation would require an errata for the Impaler cannon. As it is the cannon's own description mentions only cover, nothing about disallowing cover saves (something you might gain from cover) in general.

Not that it affects me - never seen Hive Guard anyway.

Yes, because GW never changes rules in FAQs.
Except they do.

"Be careful with this line of reasoning. If this is true that they mean the same then rerolling to wound(ie. Lighting claws) would work on vehicles. This caused a stink awhile back. Just saying. "

No, it doesnt work with rolling to wound rerolls - as only penetrating or glancing hits are equivalent to wound, NOT rolling to penetrate armour.

I agree that's why I stated you have to be careful because it will cause more issues. If you equate wounds with damage results ,then the argument for rerolls COULD be made. I would never do it and would straighten someone out if they tried it.
Just replacing the word with another isn't enough. It would need to be the context as well.

The argument for rerolls has been made repeatedly - its just it doesnt work, as reroll to-wound is not the same, ever, in any way, the same as reroll to-armour pen.

From experience - people will attempt almost any argument, regardless of what has come before.

That's very true, unless playing with friends I find the game comes down to arguing instead of actually playing the game. I've seen tournaments were they spend a good 20 minutes arguing on how to role a dice.

Trance_Phoenix wrote:That's very true, unless playing with friends I find the game comes down to arguing instead of actually playing the game. I've seen tournaments were they spend a good 20 minutes arguing on how to role a dice.

You've seen some poorly run tournaments then.

I have, I'm not saying it's common just that I have seen it. It's discouraged me from entering tournaments though. But people will argue anything and it becomes annoying because it just breaks the game. Playing competitively is fun but I prefer the challenge to be within the game and not arguing it's rules.

Yikes, thats some VERY badly run tournaments. I've run tournaments a couple times, and have yet to see anything that bad, and attended a fair few (probably 30?) all the way up to 120 ish people. Most people ive ever seen just get on with it.