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.

Death is completely right here, I don't even think he could spell it out in any simpler terms.

The only reason vehicles get cover saving throws in the first place is because of this special rule. The rule states the vehicle treats exactly as if it was a non-vehicle unit being wounded. Without that wording, you would be denied cover saves based on the fact vehicles can not take wounds. Yet you want it both ways; the ability to take cover saves based on treating the situation like you are taking a wound but also ignore situations that would deny the cover based on the fact you can't take a wound.

RAW then, if I get hit by a ignores cover weapon on a vehicle in cover and treat it as a unsaved wound as I have to treat it exactly like a model with wounds does, can I use Feel no pain then.

Does your model suffer an unsaved wound? IF so, then go ahead

Oh wait, no, it doesnt. what youre doing is treating a specific allowance [to treat cover saves for vehicles in the same way as for non vehicles] and, without permission, extending it to say they are equivalent.

Which they arent.

How would you go about granting a vehicle the feel no pain ability, curious about that.

JinxDragon wrote:
How would you go about granting a vehicle the feel no pain ability, curious about that.

Take Bjorn the Felhanded as your Warlord and roll the 5 result on the Personal Warlord Traits?

Of course, it will have no effect.

Oh, that guy, yeah that could do it. I think it would be a rare, probably never planned for, occurrence and it is clearly something you would get through random chance alone. That just makes me more then willing to allow you a feel no pain save on your vehicle. It would make me laugh.

Well there's also stuff like the Blood Angel Sanguinary Priests with grant FnP and FC to any friendly BA unit within 6", so it can be more common.

For the record, I voted that Ignores Cover weapons do in fact include vehicles.

 Ravenous D wrote:

And here's the full rule from page 75:
"Obviously, vehicles cannot go to ground, voluntarily or otherwise. if the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take cover save, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a save pf 5+ for a wood and so on)."

However, the rule quote provided above opens the door for a differing interpretation by those wishing to present an alternative view. If the rule ended before the bracket, then it's pretty clear as to the intent of the rule. However, by including the bracketed reference to level of Cover Save gained, one could suppose that the writer only meant that the similarities between vehicle and non-vehicle cover saves is limited to just the level of cover received, not Ignores Cover rules.

Also, strictly speaking, the rule quoted above deals with how a model gains a cover save, not how that model may then lose a cover save.

Again, in my group, we play Ignores Cover does just that, so please don't flame me, I'm just pointing out a different view.

Henrythesecond wrote:
For the record, I voted that Ignores Cover weapons do in fact include vehicles.

 Ravenous D wrote:

And here's the full rule from page 75:
"Obviously, vehicles cannot go to ground, voluntarily or otherwise. if the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take cover save, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a save pf 5+ for a wood and so on)."

However, the rule quote provided above opens the door for a differing interpretation by those wishing to present an alternative view. If the rule ended before the bracket, then it's pretty clear as to the intent of the rule. However, by including the bracketed reference to level of Cover Save gained, one could suppose that the writer only meant that the similarities between vehicle and non-vehicle cover saves is limited to just the level of cover received, not Ignores Cover rules.

Also, strictly speaking, the rule quoted above deals with how a model gains a cover save, not how that model may then lose a cover save..

It really doesnt. DR has pretty clearly spelled that out.

I am very much Agreed with the Ignores cover affects Vehicles.

But Just so I can get the general feedback of the forum. If I use a SMS from a skyrail. And shoot at a flyer. Does this negate the flyers Jink. Always getting into arguments. as the Jink rule clearly states that it is a cover save. So Ignores cover should work.

And all i get back from lots of people I might add. Is that it ignores cover that a model is in and a flyer is not in cover, it just gets a cover save. which makes no sense what so ever.

i thinks its crystal clear. that Jink would not work as in the rules it states a Cover save.

JinxDragon wrote:
How would you go about granting a vehicle the feel no pain ability, curious about that.

Cast Endurance on a vehicle.
Gives the vehicle IWND which isn't useless.

 alienvalentine wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
Infantry get hit, get wounded, and if their LOS is blocked by terrain they get the cover save of whatever they are behind. If the weapon has ingores cover they do not get to use the cover save against the wounds as per ignores cover:

"Cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by weapons with the ignores cover special rule"

Tanks get hit, roll for armour pen, then cover is determined. Its not a wound roll, thus no ignores cover.

I feel it necessary to point out that the poll you commissioned shows the Dakka community disagrees. 93% of the voters agree that the Ignores cover rule applies to vehicles. Any time we achieve this kind of consensus is nigh on miraculous. I think it's time we put this discussion to bed.

Putting the discussion to bed means it can wake up again and harass us more. I say we beat it with a stick until it sleeps for good.

I think the wording RAW clearly determines that you ignore cove saves on a vehicle with a 'Ignores Cover' weapon.

Henrythesecond wrote:However, the rule quote provided above opens the door for a differing interpretation by those wishing to present an alternative view. If the rule ended before the bracket, then it's pretty clear as to the intent of the rule. However, by including the bracketed reference to level of Cover Save gained, one could suppose that the writer only meant that the similarities between vehicle and non-vehicle cover saves is limited to just the level of cover received, not Ignores Cover rules.

Also, strictly speaking, the rule quoted above deals with how a model gains a cover save, not how that model may then lose a cover save.

This summed up my thoughts on the the No side of the argument. If I was ever inclined to make a RAW argument opposed in favor of Ignores Cover not removing cover saves from Vehicles, these are the points I would bring up.

Farseer Faenyin wrote:I think the wording RAW clearly determines that you ignore cove saves on a vehicle with a 'Ignores Cover' weapon.

I disagree that it is clear. If it was, you would not see this thread popping up so regularly. Saying it's trolls or noobs or TFG/WAACs is all well and good, but it we're going to apply Occam's Razor to anything, let's just admit that the simplest explanation is that the situation is at least slightly ambiguous.

What is not ambiguous is the 90%+ polled in favor of Ignores Cover ignoring cover on a vehicle. That also matches fairly accurately with how I have seen it played, my understanding of RAI, and HIWPI.