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.

Does the majority of people play that 'ignores cover' doesn't apply when shooting at a vehicle, since it only says when wounding, not penetrating armor? I know at our LFGS ignores cover works against any unit you're targeting.

At my FLGS we play it that if an attack has Ignores Cover it also applies against vehicles.

Everyone I know doesn't allow it on vehicles.

If it's a cover save it's ignored. Vehicle/Infantry doesn't matter.

"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" (75, Emphasis mine)

Ignores cover works against vehicles because vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound"

How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against an attack with the ignores cover USR?

I also have a ? A lot of people i play against believe ignores coves means that even if i don't have line of sight to target i can still shoot them. Is this how the rule for ignores cover weapons and other thing are really suppose to work. our people abuseing the rules. i think this is why tau is still big because i can be 70inches away and out of line of site hinding on back side of a hill and still get shoot at ant any fun

zilka86 wrote:
I also have a ? A lot of people i play against believe ignores coves means that even if i don't have line of sight to target i can still shoot them. Is this how the rule for ignores cover weapons and other thing are really suppose to work. our people abuseing the rules. i think this is why tau is still big because i can be 70inches away and out of line of site hinding on back side of a hill and still get shoot at ant any fun

This isn't right at all. LOS is 100% required unless it has something that changes that. Hive Guard is an example; their impaler cannons have Homing and Ignores Cover.

But just because you take a cover save like it's an incoming wound, it doesn't make the attack on you a wound. It is still an armor penetration that you are saving against as if it is a wound.

Ignores cover says "Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule." Ignores cover doesn't depend on how the target reacts.Only on if the firing weapon is possibly generating a wound. Against a vehicle it's generating an armor pen which doesn't satisfy the ignores cover rule.

If you do not treat it as a Wound, for cover save purposes, have you treated the cover save situation exactly in the same way as a non-vehicle model would treat it?

 deviantduck wrote:
But just because you take a cover save like it's an incoming wound, it doesn't make the attack on you a wound. It is still an armor penetration that you are saving against as if it is a wound.

Ignores cover says "Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule." Ignores cover doesn't depend on how the target reacts.Only on if the firing weapon is possibly generating a wound. Against a vehicle it's generating an armor pen which doesn't satisfy the ignores cover rule.

vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" Do we agree here? (We should it is a direct quote).

How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against an attack with the ignores cover USR? (It cant)

Therefore Ignores cover works on vehicles as well.

 DeathReaper wrote:
vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" Do we agree here? (We should it is a direct quote).

Correct. This is about a target vehicle and about the target vehicle's mechanics in how it takes a cover save. it has absolutely nothing to do with the special rule 'ignores cover'

 DeathReaper wrote:
How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against an attack with the ignores cover USR? (It cant)

Correct. Because a wound is being dealt from a weapon by a model with the 'ignores cover' special rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Therefore Ignores cover works on vehicles as well.

Incorrect. a wound is not being dealt. an armor pen is taking place. so a model with the 'ignores cover' special rule isn't dealing a wound and therefore not satisfying the requirement to trigger the ignoring of a cover save.

 deviantduck wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" Do we agree here? (We should it is a direct quote).

Correct. This is about a target vehicle and about the target vehicle's mechanics in how it takes a cover save. it has absolutely nothing to do with the special rule 'ignores cover'

 DeathReaper wrote:
How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against an attack with the ignores cover USR? (It cant)

Correct. Because a wound is being dealt from a weapon by a model with the 'ignores cover' special rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Therefore Ignores cover works on vehicles as well.

Incorrect. a wound is not being dealt. an armor pen is taking place. so a model with the 'ignores cover' special rule isn't dealing a wound and therefore not satisfying the requirement to trigger the ignoring of a cover save.

But you are told to treat it as if it WERE a wound being dealt. A glancing hit is coming at my vehicle, but it is obscured. How do we deal with that... we treat it like a wound to an infantry model. Well a wound towards an infantry model would ignore it's cover, therefor treating the hit as if it were a wound, it ignores the vehicles cover, and does damage.

Bear in mind the original poster asked how you would play it.

This wasn't a RaW question. There's already threads on that.
Debating the rule muddies the water, as the OP is trying to get a general consensus on game play.

 grendel083 wrote:
Bear in mind the original poster asked how you would play it.

This wasn't a RaW question.

The RAW and the HIWPI are the same. Vehicles do not get cover saves from weapons with the Ignores cover USR.

This is not a situation like models without eyes not being able to shoot or assault so there is no need to play it any other way IMHO.

Does ignores covet then litter mean what say no covr no matter what so i can shot my riptide at anything i want even if i can't see it because my shots go right thru cover. that how many players play because that how we in trupit the rule ignores cover means IGNORES COVER no way los don't matter

It isn't the name of the Rule which matters, it is the body.
The Body if the Rule tells you that it effects Cover Saves, Line of Sight requirements are not Cover Saves.

zilka86 wrote:
I also have a ? A lot of people i play against believe ignores coves means that even if i don't have line of sight to target i can still shoot them. Is this how the rule for ignores cover weapons and other thing are really suppose to work. our people abuseing the rules. i think this is why tau is still big because i can be 70inches away and out of line of site hinding on back side of a hill and still get shoot at ant any fun

I think it's possible that the people you're playing with are confusing Barrage and Ignores Cover. Barrage Weapons don't need LoS to fire. There are several major Barrage Weapons in the game that ALSO Ignore Cover, but they're separate rules. It sounds like some people in your gaming group might have gotten confused by that and think that the Ignore Cover special rule comes along with the "no LoS" rule from Barrage as well.

So I'd just explain that they're separate next time you play.

chanceafs wrote:


But you are told to treat it as if it WERE a wound being dealt. A glancing hit is coming at my vehicle, but it is obscured. How do we deal with that... we treat it like a wound to an infantry model. Well a wound towards an infantry model would ignore it's cover, therefor treating the hit as if it were a wound, it ignores the vehicles cover, and does damage.

A vehicle is being told to treat a shot as wound for the purpose of taking a cover save. A shooter is not being told to ignore cover because another separate rule is treating the shot as something else.
Way too much is being assumed without literal permission specifying anything. You're comparing two different unrelated rules.

Vehicle cover save: Rule A says treat X as Y.
Ignores cover: Rule B says must be X to work.
Your argument is since rule A treats X as Y, then rule B treats X as Y?

To swing your tennis racket at a tennis ball, treat baseballs as tennis balls.
To win the game, throw a tennis ball.
A baseball is thrown. Rule A treats the baseball as a tennis ball so the racket can swing. But a baseball is still thrown.

But I get to win the game? It's still a baseball.

 deviantduck wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" Do we agree here? (We should it is a direct quote).

Correct. This is about a target vehicle and about the target vehicle's mechanics in how it takes a cover save. it has absolutely nothing to do with the special rule 'ignores cover'

 DeathReaper wrote:
How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against an attack with the ignores cover USR? (It cant)

Correct. Because a wound is being dealt from a weapon by a model with the 'ignores cover' special rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Therefore Ignores cover works on vehicles as well.

Incorrect. a wound is not being dealt. an armor pen is taking place. so a model with the 'ignores cover' special rule isn't dealing a wound and therefore not satisfying the requirement to trigger the ignoring of a cover save.

Yes because we need to argue a rule in such a way that Wave Serpents get even BETTER.

I don't play it this way. I just don't understand the logic. It also leads to other rules issues like the IG tank commander getting LoS to another tank.

 deviantduck wrote:
You're comparing two different unrelated rules.

No, we're comparing taking cover saves to taking cover saves. In both cases, you're taking a cover save.

Rule A: Affects fruit, like Apples.
Rule B: Affects oranges.

Orange is still a fruit; an apple may be the example fruit, but it's not the only fruit.

 deviantduck wrote:
I just don't understand the logic.

Really? The rule is that vehicles take cover saves like you would against a wound. Why is that so difficult? Your interpretation directly breaks that rule - you're taking a cover save as if it WEREN'T a wound. Well, you don't get to do that. It's against the rules.

 deviantduck wrote:
It also leads to other rules issues like the IG tank commander getting LoS to another tank.

I don't see how Look Out Sir! is a cover save. It seems you really DON'T understand the logic.

HIWPI, Ignores Cover ignores all cover, regardless of target.

 Ashiraya wrote:
HIWPI, Ignores Cover ignores all cover, regardless of target.

Ditto. Otherwise we buff Wave Serpents more.

Pyrian,
The Look Out Sir reference comes from the fact the Squadron Rules contains very similar instructions when it comes to allocating 'hits,' informing us to treat them exactly like other Units treat Wounds. Now that there is a (Character) that is possible to be part of a squadron, something that even Bjorn wasn't allowed to do I believe, it is possible to evoke this squadron based rule. This in turn creates the unusual situation where we have one tank jumping in the way of another tank to try and intercept the shot. I don't have a problem with that from a narrative point of view, one can drive in front of the other tank to intercept the shot, but personally feel that it was an unintended consequence of several rules poorly interacting with each other.

Others are putting it forth as evidence that we do not treat them exactly like Wounds even when it is a lone Rule telling us to do so.

Pyrian wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
You're comparing two different unrelated rules.

No, we're comparing taking cover saves to taking cover saves. In both cases, you're taking a cover save.

Rule A: Affects fruit, like Apples.
Rule B: Affects oranges.

Orange is still a fruit; an apple may be the example fruit, but it's not the only fruit.

Ignores cover removes cover saves from the target.
Ignores cover is triggered when you deal a wound.
If you're shooting at a vehicle, you are not wounding it.
Ignores cover is not triggered.
Correct?

Vehicles are not wounded, but are damaged thru armor penetration.
Vehicle rules grants vehicles cover saves by treating incoming AP damage as a wound.
Correct?

Where do we get permission to take the second rule (vehicle cover saves) and apply it to the first rule (ignores cover)?
How can a vehicle interpreting the incoming AP attack as a wound change the fact the original shot was in no way a wound, and never triggered ignores cover?

Pyrian wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
I just don't understand the logic.

Really? The rule is that vehicles take cover saves like you would against a wound. Why is that so difficult? Your interpretation directly breaks that rule - you're taking a cover save as if it WEREN'T a wound. Well, you don't get to do that. It's against the rules.

Thank goodness there are rules that allows us to treat non-wound ap shot as a wound so the cover save rules work against a vehicle.

Pyrian wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
It also leads to other rules issues like the IG tank commander getting LoS to another tank.

I don't see how Look Out Sir! is a cover save. It seems you really DON'T understand the logic.

You missed this completely. IG tank commanders are characters. Characters get look out sir. Look out sir reallocates wounds. You cannot deal a wound to a tank, so no look out sir. However, if a tank is behind an aegis, it now gets a cover save. If you treat cover saves as wounds, then if a tank is in cover, it gets a look out sir. if it isn't in cover, it doesn't? Doesn't that seem rather weird?

@deviantduck the cover is irrelevant in the case of LoS rolls. The reason those would work uses the same logic as why Ignores Cover would work (I am aware that you deny that this logic is correct).

"When a squadron of vehicles is shot at, roll To Hit as normal. Once you have determined the number of hits, these hits must be resolved, one at a time, against the model in the squadron closest to the firing unit - exactly like you would resolve Wounds on a normal unit." Emphasis mine.

Using the same term "exactly like you would resolve Wounds", you can tell that both Ignores Cover and LoS work with vehicles.

 deviantduck wrote:
You missed this completely. IG tank commanders are characters. Characters get look out sir. Look out sir reallocates wounds. You cannot deal a wound to a tank, so no look out sir. However, if a tank is behind an aegis, it now gets a cover save. If you treat cover saves as wounds, then if a tank is in cover, it gets a look out sir. if it isn't in cover, it doesn't? Doesn't that seem rather weird?

That would be very weird if it weren't completely made-up with no rules basis.

If an Ignores Cover weapon hits a vehicle, the vehicle does not get a cover save. I don't know anyone who plays it any other way.

 Jimsolo wrote:
If an Ignores Cover weapon hits a vehicle, the vehicle does not get a cover save. I don't know anyone who plays it any other way.

There are a couple rules like this, where the intention is pretty clear but people just insist on playing it another way.

It can be really frustrating, especially in a tournament environment.

HIWPI is also that 'ignores cover' works for vehicles. Never even heard it suggested otherwise.

If you do come across someone who insists it doesn't work, make sure you take grav weapons and see whether they wish to have their cake and eat it. (RAW don't allow vehicle cover saves against Grav)