Cover from destroyed/immobilized vehicles

[Chucku]

I heard from a friend who played at Adepticon that someone he played against using a vehicle wreck as cover claimed a 3+ cover save instead of the typical generic 4+ one. He said the player was able to show documentation of this nugget. I recall a rule that wrecks are considered difficult & dangerous terrain and provide an (undefined, assume 4+) cover save.

 

Is there any truth to this assertion? If so Rhinos are now even more valuable!! :D

[Seahawk]

Perhaps it was a unit with Stealth. Otherwise he cheated, as wrecks are only 4+.

[Maijin]

Page 21 of the rulebook clearly defines "wreckage" as a 4+ cover save. Only Fortification are a 3+. Anyone who would argue a wrecked rhino is a fortified area is wrong, plain and simple.

[Ming]

I think we use hiding behind or on wrecked vehicles as 4+, debris and crater from exploded vehicles as 5+.

[ShinyRhino]

I think we use hiding behind or on wrecked vehicles as 4+, debris and crater from exploded vehicles as 5+.

 

Nah, we use pretty much EVERYTHING is a 4+. lol.

[Seahawk]

debris and crater from exploded vehicles as 5+.

 

You're only handicapping yourself here. Wrecks are a 4+. Craters are a 4+. Having it block some of your own units when alive is 4+. No matter what state the vehicle is in (alive, wrecked, or exploded) it provides a 4+ cover save.

 

ShinyRhino has the better assumption. Everything but: [razor wire, wire mesh (6+), high grass, crops, bushes, hedges, fences (5+)] provides a 4+ save.

[Isiah]

Well if he had 'documentation' to prove it what's the big deal? Don't forget Adepticn make use of the INAT FAQ, so perhaps there was a ruling in there, or it was just a competition or mission house rule who knows. Without seeing the 'documantation' we can only guess.

 

And if that's the case, then I'd rather no-one accuse the player of cheating.

 

Cheers

I