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.

Templates ignore cover saves. Regardless.

You're argument is that a Glancing/Penetrating Hit =/= Wound.
The only time cover saves are ignore from templates per the BRB is when resolving wounds. Therefore according to you Templates do not ignore cover saves for vehicles.

If the email is real? I wouldn't be lying to a bunch of anonymous people on a public forum, theres no value for it, I just want to share the info.

For me it's more I'd like to know how to play it out for tournaments, I will play that I don't get cover saves and stop whining about it, and move on and discuss how to deal with impaler cannons...as I started a new thread for that.

The problem, is per the tenets of YMDC:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

oh okay, sorry bout that =)

And why not since vics don't suffer wounds templates don't ignore them Raw. Rai I would say yes and play it that way.

Please note, I was not calling you a liar. I was informing you of the tenets. My point was all the e-mail you posted said was they would change the FAQ (at some indeterminate time in the future). Had you asked "Does X mean Y?" and they said Yes, per the tenets it would not matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GODLYNESS, I would also like to point you to page 73, Walkers and Assaults:
"Each roll on the Vehicle Damage table against a walker counts as a single wound for purposes of working out who won the combat"
Yet more proof that Glance/Pen Hits == Wounds.

So instead of Gw writing more ambiguous rules and adding 30 more pages for vehicle combat they said screw it if we say they are like wounds common sense should say this counts to combat resolution even though vics can't take wounds. Alright let's do that my hand hurts from writing all this stuff anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Side note does a vic have a wound profile.

No?

O well it can't take wounds then.

Just disregard the FAQ answer... it's incorrect. And if it was a rules change to the Impaler cannon it should be in Errata.

I have given you multiple examples that show Glance/Pen Hits == Wounds, yet you are trying to tell me that something that cannot suffer wounds, only some of the rules apply.

Templates ignore cover saves for resolving wounds, yet no one argues that vehicles can take cover saves since they don't suffer wounds.
Cover (and Invuln) saves are taken for vehicles exactly like cover/invuln saves for models with wounds.
Glance/Pen hits on walkers in cc counts as wounds.

I've shown my proof, including page references. As for you all you can say is that Glance/Pen hits =/= wounds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
GODLYNESS, I would also like to point you to page 73, Walkers and Assaults:
"Each roll on the Vehicle Damage table against a walker counts as a single wound for purposes of working out who won the combat"
Yet more proof that Glance/Pen Hits == Wounds.

Happyjew wrote:I have given you multiple examples that show Glance/Pen Hits == Wounds, yet you are trying to tell me that something that cannot suffer wounds, only some of the rules apply.

Templates ignore cover saves for resolving wounds, yet no one argues that vehicles can take cover saves since they don't suffer wounds.
Cover (and Invuln) saves aret aken for vehicles exactly like cover/invuln saves for models with wounds.
Glance/Pen hits on walkers in cc counts as wounds.

I've shown my proof, including page references. As for you all you can say is that Glance/Pen hits =/= wounds.

HappyJew is completely right there should be no further arguement on this subject. It's been ruled a thousand times that glance/pen are saved the same way as wounds and vice versa. which means that anyting that ignores cover, ignores cover it's as simple as that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:


Tis true but when they lose combat they don't take no retreat wounds it says they take glancing hits. so vics don't take wounds.

which rule book are you looking at? Walkers have ignored lost combat for a long time

Happyjew wrote:I have given you multiple examples that show Glance/Pen Hits == Wounds, yet you are trying to tell me that something that cannot suffer wounds, only some of the rules apply.

Templates ignore cover saves for resolving wounds, yet no one argues that vehicles can take cover saves since they don't suffer wounds.
Cover (and Invuln) saves aret aken for vehicles exactly like cover/invuln saves for models with wounds.
Glance/Pen hits on walkers in cc counts as wounds.

I've shown my proof, including page references. As for you all you can say is that Glance/Pen hits =/= wounds.

So because no one argues we should accept it as truth? It just has never come up. Saying ignores all cover saves cept terrain caused by wounds. RAW vics don't take wounds therefore impaler cannon does not ignore vic coversaves. Till the faq is faqed that is RAW. Just because you want it to affect vics does not mean it does. To say they take cover saves like wounds is all fine and dandy but at no time dies a vic take a wound.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote: when they lose combat they don't take no retreat wounds it says they take glancing hits. so vics don't take wounds.

You are saying that because there is a specific allowance for them to ignore one source of wounds, that they ignore all sources?



Even when that example tells you that they take glances instead?

Just making sure I get what you are saying, because it baffles me.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:Tis true but when they lose combat they don't take no retreat wounds it says they take glancing hits. so vics don't take wounds.

Which helps my side of the debate. Since they cannot take wounds they automatically suffer Glancing hits which as I have shown = Wounds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tis true but

which rule book are you looking at? Walkers have ignored lost combat for a long time

My bad that is entirely true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:Tis true but when they lose combat they don't take no retreat wounds it says they take glancing hits. so vics don't take wounds.

Which helps my side of the debate. Since they cannot take wounds they automatically suffer Glancing hits which as I have shown = Wounds.

Or they don't. Wounds have no effect on vics. Only pentrating and glancing hits.

I was wrong I was on fourth with walkers in combat. I think. Where they took glancing hits for losing combat.

The godlyness - penetrating / glancing hits are equivalent to wounds.

You are ONLY given permission to take a cover save in the SAME WAY as a non-vehicle (please, actually use the word "vehicle", as per the forum rules) would take a cover save against wounds.

If you are unable to take a cover save against the wound, the vehicle is unable to take a cover save against any glancing / penetrating hit.

RAW, you are 100% incorrect

Spetulhu wrote:Just disregard the FAQ answer... it's incorrect. And if it was a rules change to the Impaler cannon it should be in Errata.

Can you cite how it's incorrect?

Spetulhu - erm, how?

The FAQ MUST have changed rules, because they changed the answer for SitW. So no, it *should* be in errata, but its presence in FAQ doesnt alter its validity.

I am not even certain that is true, people have asked if that interpretation was valid since the book came out.

Not sure what youre asking there....

SitW was ruled one way wrt vehicle
They then entirely reversed that decision

Now, only ONE of those could have followed the rules

So to say a FAQ answer is incorrect because it doesnt follow the ruels and so should be in errata is nullified by GWs own rulings.

If that was for me, I was meaning the Impaler Cannons as FAQ vs. Errata.

Ah, the whole SitW being blocked by transports? there certainly was a rules argument against that ruling, but it was mainly an argument on how unfair it was!

Agreed.

Now if I can just convince them to FAQ Doom's ability to work on embarked units! *rubs hands together mischeviously*

Wait, wait, wait, what if we get all the Nid players to bombard GW with demands. For example, Doom does not allow cover saves, Models for everything (and for cheap). The list goes on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please note I do not condone this sort of action.

Just my .02 about this issue and Wounds not being equivalent to Glancing and Penetrating Hits.

The ERRATA for the Necrons goes as such:

Page 52 – Sweep Attack, second paragraph
Change the last sentence to “Cover saves are not
permitted against Wounds, glancing hits and
penetrating hits caused by Sweep Attacks.

The Codex Entry for Necron sweep attacks reads as:

"Cover Saves are not permitted against wounds caused by sweep attacks."

This in my mind shows that GW does not think that wounds are the same as Glancing/Penetrating Hits.
Also this is Errata for a Book not a GW house Rule FAQ.

Personally I do believe that the Impaler Cannon would Ignore the KFF and its Ilk. So this is in no way an indication
of my stance on that rule, but more to bring this Wound =/= Glancing/Penetrating hit issue to light.

....which is directly refuted by the rules for taking cover saves on vehicles.

Milisim wrote:The FAQ states a unit may not take a Cover save from anything other than the terrain they are in or touching.


For me and I will argue this....

1. My vehicle is not taking a cover save, covering saves come from terrain. My Invulnerable save (Flickerfield/KFF) is given to me by wargear, thus not a cover save.

2. My vehicle does not take wounds. It take glancing hits or pentrating hits....

Regarding point 2., on page 62 of the BRB, it says

BRB wrote:
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing hit or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.

Thus, any wargear that makes a vehicle "count as obscured" or any rule that grants a vehicle a "cover save" will not provide a save against the Impaler Cannon. Since this is the only mention of cover saves for vehicles in the BRB, I have to assume that the clause "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound" applies to all cover saves, and not merely ones that grow out of a status of "obscured".

Milisim wrote:It HAS to be this way otherwise all armour saves, (IE:terminators with 2+/3++ wont get an invulnerable save because the they arent in cover?) an Archon with Shadowfield and every other piece of wargear in the whole universe is nullified by a tyranid weapon.... Its impossible, illogical and just a shining example of why GW need to hire a lawyer to word there rules.

The FAQ does not say "invulnerable saves", it says "cover saves". In this case, it's perfectly clear. If a piece of wargear says that it grants a "cover save" (KFF, Smoke), then the Hive Guard ignore it. If a piece of Wargear says that it grants an "invulnerable save" (Flickerfields, Shadowfield), then Hive Guard do not ignore it.

Derp. Didn't notice that there were two more pages.

I'll leave this post here as a monument to my own ineptitude.

Damn is this thread full of some stupid. I mean people ignoring rulings that are actually in the BRB just cause it suits them not too for the sake of this tiny argument? O_o Plus there are a lot of WAAC fags hanging about here too.

Hive Guard aren't even that great a unit. People just mad cause it means they can take out the transports they hide all their men in.

Hive Guard are expensive, are the only good durable anti-tank Tyranids have, can only be fielded in groups of 3 with a max of 9 on the field at a time and taking 9 really limits the armies choice of specialist units.

The FAQ clearly states that no cover saves can be taken against the impaler cannon unless they are in or touching obscuring terrain. How is that hard to understand?