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.

Hello! I have used forum search but it didn't answered my rule question, so let me seek an answer.

Ignore Cover USR says that weapon ignore cover for inflicted wounds, nothing about glans or pens for vihicles armor.
My local meta is crowded with Tau players and all of them point on page 75 of BRB stating that cover for vihicles is rolling exactly like wounds.

Still p. 75 of BRB does not answer my question, I mean I still have some feelings that they just cheating or use the rules not properly.

I would be very happy for an answer - does vihicles get cover save or not from the shooting attack with the ignore cover USR?

If it ignores cover, it ignores it for everything.

Sounds like you are grasping at straws to find a loophole to prove why you lost.

IMO, p75 alone is not persuasive in trying to apply Ignores Cover to remove a vehicle's cover saves (from Jink for example).

Also, the name of a rule does not count as part of the rules.
The GK OSR 'Barrage Bomb' strike profile does not have 'Barrage' (GK p58)
A Necron Harbinger of Destruction's 'Eldridge Lance' does not have the Lance rule (Necrons p84)
etc

I did not see a faq entry on it. This might be an artifact from the 5th to 6th transition.

I would, politely, ask for a better reason.

"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"p.75

What about that is confusing?

Vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound"

Exactly the same procedure as taking a cover save for infantry.

If that includes ignoring cover saves then so be it.

Sorry Abe, but I think that the combined rules make it clear that the standard way of doing it is the correct way.

No worries though, I've run up against a couple of situations where things have seemed a little funny to me, too. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone is trying to cheat you, just using their army's strength to its utmost.

Before we jump down people's throats, guys, lets try and remember that we've all had rules problems in the past. In addition, I think that this particular issue, which is one of semantics, might be confounded by the fact that the original poster does not have English as a native language. There's always the possibility of mistakes when going from one tongue to another, and even when no mistake has been made, it certainly doesn't hurt to ask.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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"p.75

What about that is confusing?

You're not reading the context on p75.
It's saying Vehicles get a cover save, albeit with a stricter requirement for being obscured.

p38 takes cover saves away from models with wounds

There may very well be a rule that clarifies or modifies Ignore Cover to include Glancing and Penetrating hits, but p75 is not it.

 nolzur wrote:
If it ignores cover, it ignores it for everything.

Sounds like you are grasping at straws to find a loophole to prove why you lost.

Yup ;D Took the words straight out of my mouth :3

This is a major problem with the way GW handles wounds and glances.

Sometimes they're equivalent (as in cover saves) sometimes they're not (Shred).

There's more RAW support for them always being equivalent so RAW they're the same and you have to house rule things like Shred or Tank Hunters (iirc) to work the way GW intended.

rigeld2 wrote:
There's more RAW support for them always being equivalent so RAW they're the same

I'm not disagreeing with this interpretations, I but I would like to see a reasonable argument for it other than Argument from Authority. Is there a thread you would recommend so you don't have to retype the same argument and find all your references again?

"There's more RAW support for them always being equivalent so RAW they're the same" is an oddly certain statement to follow on the heals of "This is a major problem with the way GW handles wounds and glances."

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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"p.75

What about that is confusing?

You're not reading the context on p75.
It's saying Vehicles get a cover save, albeit with a stricter requirement for being obscured.

p38 takes cover saves away from models with wounds

There may very well be a rule that clarifies or modifies Ignore Cover to include Glancing and Penetrating hits, but p75 is not it.

Page 75 equates vehicle armor pen rolls, when they need to take cover saves, with wounds, as you take vehicle cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound"

In the case of something that ignores cover, a model with wounds does not take a cover save. The vehicle will also not take a cover save as vehicles take cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound"

I did not initially think it was confusing, but now I see how some people can be confused because of the wording of the Ignores Cover USR.

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There's more RAW support for them always being equivalent so RAW they're the same

I'm not disagreeing with this interpretations, I but I would like to see a reasonable argument for it other than Argument from Authority. Is there a thread you would recommend so you don't have to retype the same argument and find all your references again?

"There's more RAW support for them always being equivalent so RAW they're the same" is an oddly certain statement to follow on the heals of "This is a major problem with the way GW handles wounds and glances."

To start with, page 75.
Also, Hive Guard FAQ.

There's more, but you get the picture. The reason I put that first sentence out there is because making them the same is a problem.
I cited why - it means Shred can re-roll pen results and Tank Hunters allows re-rolls to wound.

Agree with DR. The vehicle takes its cover save against a Glance or Pen “exactly like” a non-vehicle model wound against a wound. How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound from an Ignores Cover weapon? It doesn’t. So neither does a vehicle.

I thought this was a cut and dry situation. but the OP does have a point. Page 75 only says LIKE a non vehicle model would against a wound. it doesn't say a Hull point is a wound. And on page 38 it says cannot be taken against wounds caused by. It doesn't say Wounds and hull points. And now I'm currently flicking through FAQ's and the rule book to see if there is anything that says Hull points are treated as wounds, and so far i cannot fined anything that states as much.

Just more Badly written rules to keep us all on our toes.

rigeld2 wrote:
To start with, page 75.

Again, I see p75 as giving vehicles cover saves, not a blanket equivalence between glancing/pen hits and wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:Also, Hive Guard FAQ.

Hive guard is not a persuasive example. Neither the Hive Guard unit nor its weapon have the Ignores Cover rule. Rather, the Impaler Cannon has it's own special rule via an asterisk in the profile. "The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard" The faq rulings for Hive Guard result from interpreting this rule, not Ignore Cover.

foolishmortal wrote:
You're not reading the context on p75.
It's saying Vehicles get a cover save, albeit with a stricter requirement for being obscured.

p38 takes cover saves away from models with wounds

There may very well be a rule that clarifies or modifies Ignore Cover to include Glancing and Penetrating hits, but p75 is not it.

Exactly the same argument was used last edition to try to deny vehicles from taking invulnerable saves. It didn't fly then either.

As others have said, the save for vehicles works exactly like it would against a wounded non-vehicle model.

 insaniak wrote:
As others have said, the save for vehicles works exactly like it would against a wounded non-vehicle model.

Is that statement based solely on p75, or is there something else I should reference.

If it is just p75, I must admit, I am unconvinced. Hopefully there is more to it than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BRB p75 includes the sentence "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"

Context is important.
The above quoted rule is from the 3rd bullet point in a list with this description...
"The difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following exceptions to the normal cover rules."

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Also, Hive Guard FAQ.

Hive guard is not a persuasive example. Neither the Hive Guard unit nor its weapon have the Ignores Cover rule. Rather, the Impaler Cannon has it's own special rule via an asterisk in the profile. "The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard" The faq rulings for Hive Guard result from interpreting this rule, not Ignore Cover.

You missed the last 3 letters of my sentence, didn't you?
You did.

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.

Either a) wounds and glances are equivelant or b) vehicles get cover saves against Hive Guard.

rigeld2 wrote:
You missed the last 3 letters of my sentence, didn't you?
You did.

"FAQ" ?

Why would you say I missed 'FAQ' when my reply included the phrase "The faq rulings for Hive Guard"

I would say
c) wounds and glances may or may not be equivalent in 6th, I'm still looking for information
and
vehicles do not get cover saves against Hive Guard's Impaler Cannon unless the cover they are claiming a save from is between them and the Hive Guard and they are in the terrain.

Edit - hmm. I'm not as sure now.
Is there a non-Hive Guard based argument? It's rather convoluted

Yes there is a "non-Hive Guard based argument"

You take vehicle cover saves "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" (75)

 Mannahnin wrote:
How does a non-vehicle model take a cover save against a wound from an Ignores Cover weapon? It doesn’t. So neither does a vehicle.