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.

Can you take cover saves from Vector Strikes? If so, under what circumstances?

Since the hits aren't from shooting, I'd say no.

Nothing states you may not take cover saves, so I dont see why you could not. Sweep specificaly disallows cover saves.

Look at cover saves on p.18. Specifically the last sentence. Vector Strike is not firing anything.

newbis wrote:Look at cover saves on p.18. Specifically the last sentence. Vector Strike is not firing anything.

Try reading the Nid FAQ. Neither is a mawloc.

C'mon now. You know you can't apply FAQs universally. That isn't a valid argument.

The FAQ states you get cover saves from a non-shooting attack

You also get cover saves from Spirit leech, a non-shooting attack

Sweep does not let you take cover saves - it explicitly says so. It is not a shooting attack.

Vector strike is not a shooting attack, and does not explicitly deny cover saves. Seeing a pattern?

It is a perfectly, 100% valid argument. ITs the only reason you could scout-smoke in 5th edition, for a start. Or did you not allow non-BA vehicles to do that?

I've made my position clear. None of those things you state are directly involved with a pure RAW dispute.

No you can't take cover saves from Vector Strikes, until a FAQ screws Nids over again.

Funny how the Vector Strike sweep attack hits vehicles on side armour, while the Catacomb Command Barge sweep hit vehicles on rear armour. I guess 1D3+1 S5 AP3 attacks from the Harpy were too strong...

newbis wrote:I've made my position clear. None of those things you state are directly involved with a pure RAW dispute.

Yes they are. GW have a very persistent history of clarifying game wide rules in codex specific FAQs.

EDIT: Remember to keep your arguments polite and focused on the rules, folks. -Mannahnin