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.

This may be straight forward as the RAW is relatively clear, but I wanted to ask the community how they see it. Would a vehicle get a cover save, via terrain or Jinx rule, from a template weapon?

Edit:

The Ignore Cover rule reads, "Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignore Cover special rule." In this case, a Hellhound was going to fire its Inferno Cannon at a Venom currently benefiting from the Jinx rule. After some discussion, the shot was redirected.

Another question that came up in this practice game involved Flyers and counting as Obscured. Can a Zooming Flyer gain a cover save from terrain or is the model restricted to Evading? During the game, a Valkyrie fired on a Razorwing with half its wing behind the second story of Ruins. The save was given since nothing seems to exclude Flyers.

Smashotron wrote:This may be straight forward as the RAW is relatively clear, but I wanted to ask the community how they see it. Would a vehicle get a cover save, via terrain or Jinx rule, from a template weapon?

flame template = no
blast marker = yes

If the attack says ignore cover. It ignores cover. Straight forward.

White Ninja wrote:If the attack says ignore cover. It ignores cover. Straight forward.

What if the weapon has the Ignore Cover special rule? It says "Wounds" and this became the point of some contention during a practice game.

Is it a flamer that caused this... what weapon are you wondering about because unless the wording is very specific it still ignores cover on vehicles.

pg 38 the special rule ignore cover specifies wounds.

I would say its always been implied against vehicles a wound = a hit. pg 76 under assault results where a glace equals 1 wound and a pen equals 2 wounds.

sirlynchmob wrote:pg 38 the special rule ignore cover specifies wounds.

I would say its always been implied against vehicles a wound = a hit. pg 76 under assault results where a glace equals 1 wound and a pen equals 2 wounds.

But doesn't that same quote clearly indicate they aren't actually wounds, because it's necessary to say how they impact wound calculation. Similarly, buildings might be treated like vehicles in many regards, but if some special rule (e.g. Haywire) effects Vehicles in a certain way, it still won't affect Buildings.

I would say Ignores Cover doesn't effect vehicles, and can't help but notice it extends to some other cover ignoring weapons in the codices (e.g. the Leman Russ Eradicator and Airburst Thunderfire Cannon shots) [edit: of some note here is Sternguard Dragonfire Bolts don't specify wounds, which seems to suggest there is an intended difference between them and the TFC when wounds are specified, of course it could just be sloppy writing.]

I would say that pg 75 states that a vehicle "must take a cover against it (glance or pen hit), exactly like a non vehicle model would against a wound." Therefore I would say that "Ignores Cover" would ignore cover for the vehicle as well.

What about cover saves for Flyers based on terrain? Or are Flyers limited to Evading?

 Smashotron wrote:
What about cover saves for Flyers based on terrain? Or are Flyers limited to Evading?

They're no different than any other vehicle, they're just higher up. Evading is there to give them an option to "always" have a cover save at your discretion.

You gave cover to a vehicle whose wing was obscured from view? That seems a little too excessive. And what kind of scenery are you guys using?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
You gave cover to a vehicle whose wing was obscured from view? That seems a little too excessive. And what kind of scenery are you guys using?

Wings are part of the hull on vehicles, so if the wing counted for 25% obscurement, then why not?

You can shoot at a wing, so you might as well be able to count it as obscured.

I play with a lot of stuff on the table, and I have yet to see a time where my buddy's Razorwing could have claimed any cover.

In our example his Razorwing was obscured by the second floor of a GW city ruins set. I just wanted to get an opinion on it so I can make similar efforts to move tactically with my Flyers. Thanks guys!

 Smashotron wrote:
This may be straight forward as the RAW is relatively clear, but I wanted to ask the community how they see it. Would a vehicle get a cover save, via terrain or Jinx rule, from a template weapon?

Well yes, RAW it's fairly clear that they technically get a cover save. So it would be fantastic if they FAQ'd this and the Barrage rules for vehicles.

 Bausk wrote:

 Smashotron wrote:
This may be straight forward as the RAW is relatively clear, but I wanted to ask the community how they see it. Would a vehicle get a cover save, via terrain or Jinx rule, from a template weapon?

Well yes, RAW it's fairly clear that they technically get a cover save. So it would be fantastic if they FAQ'd this and the Barrage rules for vehicles.

Not if the template weapon has the Ignores Cover rule, which generally they all will.

Fragile wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Smashotron wrote:
This may be straight forward as the RAW is relatively clear, but I wanted to ask the community how they see it. Would a vehicle get a cover save, via terrain or Jinx rule, from a template weapon?

Well yes, RAW it's fairly clear that they technically get a cover save. So it would be fantastic if they FAQ'd this and the Barrage rules for vehicles.

Not if the template weapon has the Ignores Cover rule, which generally they all will.

Yeah the ignores cover rule says that you may not take cover saves from wounds caused by a weapon with the rule. I agree that it should ignore cover but it needs to be clarified as glancing and penetrating hits as well. Just as if they intend us to play from the center of a blast marker on barrage weapons VS vehicles they need to specify there too.

Go reread pg 75 or scroll back. The two are comparable.

Fragile wrote:
Go reread pg 75 or scroll back. The two are comparable.

In specific situations, not all. In this situation it should, not saying it shouldn't. Just saying it needs the elaboration to count it as RAW.

Fragile wrote:
I would say that pg 75 states that a vehicle "must take a cover against it (glance or pen hit), exactly like a non vehicle model would against a wound." Therefore I would say that "Ignores Cover" would ignore cover for the vehicle as well.

Pretty clear in this case.

Fragile wrote:

Fragile wrote:
I would say that pg 75 states that a vehicle "must take a cover against it (glance or pen hit), exactly like a non vehicle model would against a wound." Therefore I would say that "Ignores Cover" would ignore cover for the vehicle as well.

Pretty clear in this case.

Yes, yes it does.