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.

I have a question regarding Psycannons.

The rules in the daemonhunter codex indicated that models wounded by a Psycannon can only take an armor save.  Then right below that sentence it mentioned that Invulnerable saves may not be taken.

How about cover saves?  Can models in cover get a save against Psycannons?

Ok, its quite simple expect stupidity from GW, they are simply unable to explain something logically and clearly using the english language. . . (Kind of funny because their based in england)

Out of the dozens of players in my area, not a single one has ever had the audacity to assume they don't get a cover save for the psi-cannon, but they do agree that incinerators do prevent cover saves. . .

And here is something cute for your reference. . .
Now the Dark Angels, Raven Wing land Speeders have a rule that they get a save against any weapon fired at them that nullifies their hit on a 6+, since this is considered a Save and isn't and armor save they wouldn't get this versus a psi-cannon.

Bionics is a saving throw according to the space marine codex, so you can't get your bionics save against psi-cannons according to a few of you. . .

Oh and you might want to check the spelling they use for armor save, or Armour save, they seem to use them differently from book to book. . . since if they spelled it as "Armor", no one would ever get a save since the save statistic gives you an Armour Save. . .

Wow. This is one of the most obvious instances I've seen where the intent of the rules and rules as-written are so transparently dichotomous.

I don't find it so obvious. If it can hit things that have a invulnerable save due to dodging as well as a stationary target, I see no dichotomy with them ignoring cover as well. It obviously has an increadible guidance system once it's locked on.

It's hard to use intent to argue that cover gives you a save against a psychic bolt. Of course, it's hard to argue that any armor would protet you from a psychic bolt. Well, that added alot to the discussion didn't it. I'm going to have to weigh in against using cover saves. This is from a strict reading though. I'm totally with you though when it comes to confusing rules redundancy donkey cannon! If we look at the template weapon rules it states that casualties can only come from within range of the weapon. Now to me that means that casualties can come from out of LOS as long as they are within range because we already know casualties must come from within range. The only reason to mention it again is because these rules must behave differently right? The fact that the rules for the incinerator specifically say it ignores cover saves which is redundant leads us to believe that they will use the same redundancy everywhere right? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Well, some weapons in the DH codex say 'ignores invulnerable saves, only armor or cover saves may be taken'

Psycannon says 'ignores invulnerable saves, only armor saves my be taken'.

'Intent' could easily go either way on this one. I just stick with the RAW.

Ok it's a typo. In no way did they mean to say you can't take a cover save. The Psycannon isn't a Judge Dreed gun that goes through cover to kill you. I see the arguement and I see the RAW but you'll find less people wanting to play you if you say they can't take cover saves.

Hell a DH list w/ 2 Psycannons per squad would own every 4+ and up army if you said they didn't get cover saves.

Does anyone remember what Psycannons are? The are assault cannons w/ blessed bolts. You take the old assault cannon and you use the blessed bolts rule with them.

"It's a typo"? That's your rules argument?

Are you getting dumber, or am I finalyl sobering up?

So psycannons are not old Assault Cannons w/ blessed bolts? Is that what you are saying mauleed? Because they are. Lets see old Assault Cannons fire 3 times with Str 6 AP 4 and blessed bolts give you no invulnerable save. Oh wait. Is that true? Yep it sure is. So yes the fact that they forgot to add can take a cover save is there. I'll tell you this. If you played me in a game and you fired 8 Psycannons into my Tau Fire Warriors and told me I couldn't take cover saves I'd punch you in the face. Everyone else would get the "are you kidding me look."

I know this is a RAW issue for you but any one with ANY intellegence would know you get a cover save from a psycannon.

I'm just saying you're a half wit. And my parole officer said I should stop arguing with the handicaped or it's back to the big house.

So psycannons are not old Assault Cannons w/ blessed bolts?

Psycannons are nothing whatsoever to do with Assault Cannons. Fluff-wise, they are in fact enhanced bolters, not even remotely like an assault cannon.

Rules-wise, both old Assault Cannons and Psycannons are S6, not S5... but the Assault Cannon had a 24" range, whereas the Psycannon is 18 or 36, and is Assault or Heavy, depending on mode (another difference from the Assault Cannon)


So did you have a point that was actually based on rules?

but any one with ANY intellegence would know you get a cover save from a psycannon.

No, anyone with any intelligence would see the line that ends "...only armour saves my be taken." and would at the very least make some allowance for the ambiguity.

Ok Idiot. Lets go to the last page of the DH codex. Right there in black and white.

Incinerator - no invulnerable or cover saves
Psycannon - ignores invulnerable saves

Ok mauleed - get around that.

Oh I guess there was a type o in the first part of the codex.

Psycannon - ignores invulnerable saves

and "...only armour saves my be taken."

Hence the ambiguity.

If you're unsure about what 'ambiguity' means, come back after you've found a dictionary.

When you found your brain come back and post because you are not using it.

Oh dear. Guess I must be wrong then. It's a good thing for Dakka that the military taught you such wonderful debating tactics.

Next time this comes up in a game, I can confidently say "Nope, he gets his cover save. Capt Anderton says so..."

Playing by the actual rules is for sissies.

LOL. Not giving someone a cover save from a psycannon is cowardly. And if you did it in a game I really hope the person you play calls you a coward. I honestly believe everyone knows the intent of that rule. Now I have shown you the last page on the DH codex. Let me refresh your mind.

PSYCANNON STR 6 AP 4 Range 18 Assault 3 / 36 Heavy 3(ignores invulnerable saves)

That seems pretty straight forward. So lets go over this. In the first part of the codex it says you only get an armour save. Then in the back of the codex it says ignores invulnerable saves. Which one do you use? We all know the first part is wrong and we all know the last page is right. Which one you going to use?

If you play me I'll point at the last page and laugh at you.

In the first part of the codex it says you only get an armour save. Then in the back of the codex it says ignores invulnerable saves. Which one do you use?

As for all cases where the summary differs from the main rules entry, you use the main rules entry. GW are the first to admit that summaries are frequently incorrent or incomplete.


Meanwhile... 'cowardly'...?

Some people seem to take this game just a mite too seriously, methinks.

LOL. Whatever dude. You keep being a coward. It seems to say the the Incinerator give NO COVER OR INVULNERABLE. So it's wrong on the "PSYCANNON IGNORES INVULNERABLE SAVES".

Man I love your logic on that. So which one is wrong?

Did they mean to say no cover saves in the description?
Did they mean to leave out no cover or invulnerable saves on the back page?

I think you play DH and you like your no cover save psycannons. Cowardly.

It seems to say the the Incinerator give NO COVER OR INVULNERABLE. So it's wrong on the "PSYCANNON IGNORES INVULNERABLE SAVES".

Man I love your logic on that. So which one is wrong?

I have no idea which is wrong. Neither do you. That's entirely the point. You can make a guess as to how it is intended... but that's all it will be. A guess. You have NOTHING in the RAW that actually backs it up. Just a guess that one is incorrect.

It's entirely possible that they intended for Psycannons to allow cover saves. It's also entirely possible that they intended for Incinerators to NOT allow cover saves. It's also entirely possible that they intended them to be completely different weapons that just happen to share certain attributes.

You're too busy insisting that you are right to actually stop and look at the other point of view. The fact is, that with the RAW, there is no way to insist that the Psycannon allows cover saves... nor is it entirely clear that it DOESN'T allow them.

I think you play DH and you like your no cover save psycannons. Cowardly.

Well, it was a nice try. Take a wander through Infernus... see how many DH miniatures you can find.

382 posts of pure trolling: Captain, we salute you!

The posting here is not trolling it's showing the fact that they didn't mean to say Psycannons ignore cover saves.

No, posting here is convincing 1948 total strangers that you should not be allowed to breed.