Hive Guard and vehicle cover saves

[DarkGuard]

Hey guys, I was over on the Tyranid Hive, and noticed that like me, all of the are rejoicing the awesomeness of Hive Guard (like they weren't awesome before) and the fact that they ignore cover saves that aren't generated from cover, remembering that to gain a cover save from cover the target has to be in it or touching it if it lies between them and the Hive Guard. So no Shield of Sanguineous, no Kustom Force Fields, no moving flat out for vehicles, disruption pods, smoke launchers, sounds awesome for Nid players I know.

 

But then, after reading the FAQ, I noticed something that may not make it as awesome for vehicles, something that, in true GW style, you have to read twice to pick it up:

 

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.

 

Emphasis mine. So this would suggest that only those non-cover generated cover saves taken against Wounds are disallowed, so a unit of Scouts hiding not in cover but behind a Libby who cast Shield wouldn't get their cover save, Tyranid Warriors hiding in a Venomthropes' spore cloud wouldn't get their cover save either. But a Razorback in Shield's radius would still get cover as against vehicles you don't roll to wound, you roll to penetrate. Seemed a clear cut case to me, you can argue about RAI and dodgy writing, but it's down there in black and white (or rather pink and white).

 

But then someone over on the Hive pulled this out of the bag a passage in the BRB that I really haven't looked at much or given much though:

 

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a save of a 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on).

 

Now that could suggest that the vehicle still doesn't get cover saves from Shield etc against Hive Guard, as here it would seem they are equating the vehicle penetration roll to the wound roll. But then if that's the case, why couldn't GW have just said nothing can take cover saves from hits or something like that? Or specifically mentioned vehicle penetration rolls don't get cover either? Also, I included the last bit in brackets because it seems to me that that's what that passage is talking about, the fact that you get an equal cover save for your piece of terrain that a non-vehicle model would get.

 

So what is it guys?

 

Is it RAW no-cover from Shield etc for non-vehicle models and RAI no-cover from Shield etc for vehicle models?

Is it RAW no-cover from Shield etc for non-vehicle models and RAW cover from Shield etc for vehicle models?

Or is it RAW no cover- from Shield etc for both non-vehicle and vehicle models?

 

I bring this to you guys, as you are the best at ironing out these little rules discrepancies, at getting to the heart of the matter and making informed decisions. And the result could seriously benefit us as well. At the moment hiding in tanks is one of our best defences against Nids, what would it be like though if they're able to ignore our smoke launchers, Shield etc and get us out our tanks a lot easier with their Hive Guard?

 

I turn this over to you, enjoy -_-.

[dswanick]

Well, take your word parsing one step further.

Cover saves from wounds caused by an Impaler cannon - no.

Vehicles don't take wounds - yes?

Vehicles take cover saves against Glancing and Penetrating hits as other models do against wounds - no.

Ah ha, the rule says "obscured" vehicles do so - Shield, KFF, Flat out, etc. (but not Smoke Launchers) don't obscure a vehicle, they just give it a cover save - yes, profit! :)

:huh: Hope this is clear, I'm typing one-handed at work while trying to finish up a job.

[Spacefrisian]

This brings up some confusion but even so here are some things taken from the rulebook and various coversaves that havent been adressed by that faq.

 

-Smoke launchers. not mentioned by errata but they still get a cover save

-Flat out/ turbo boost. not mentioned by errata but it still grants a cover save

-Intervening models between hive guard and its target, not mentioned by errata but still a cover save

-Special powers/wargear/ psychic powers, not mentioned by errata but still a cover save.

 

Just because an errata says it negates something while a other codex or rulebook says they gain one, doesnt mean that a hive guard ignores the given covers.

 

GW and there halfthought answers.

[DarkGuard]

I think I'll wait until you've got two hands dswanick, but thanks for the attempt :).

 

@ Spacefrisian, number 3 is incorrect there, Hive Guard have never ever ever allowed cover saves for intervening models, unless they're touching, here's the original rule for their impaler cannon in the Tyranid Codex:

 

The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard

 

So for intervening models you don't get a cover save unless you're touching the unit.

 

As for your specific examples, they don't need to be mentioned, and such a list would be exhaustive. The phrase "cover saves from any source other than the terrain they are in, or touching" is quite clear and very clearly includes things like Shield, smoke etc. The question isn't over that sentence and the fact that GW didn't feel the need to write down every piece of wargear and special rule that does this, but rather on that last word "Wound", and how page 62 of the BRB interacts with it.

[Something Wycked]

I think we had this "exactly like" discussion when it came to Reanimation Protocols/Everliving, didn't we? :D

 

IMO, that BRB p.62 quote is just trying to simplify the cover mechanic for players by saying it uses the same process of determining cover for vehicles as infantry. The evidence is the example, which cites various saves from various cover sources- using the same numbers for the vehicle saves as infantry use for their saves.

 

So, by pure RAW: 1) When the Impaler Cannon causes Wounds, no saves may be taken except for saves granted by terrain the models are in or touching. 2) When the Impaler Cannon causes Armor Penetrations, all cover the vehicle is "in or touching" will count, regardless of source.

 

But the way I see it, pure RAW doesn't tell the whole story here. I believe this is just a lack of thoroughness on the part of GW. It makes little to no sense for the weapon to ignore certain kinds of cover for infantry but not to ignore those same kinds of cover for vehicles. Outside of unit type specific rules spelled out in their respective BRB entries, rules exemptions are essentially always for a whole class of rule rather than types of models. For example, the old Daemonhunter Psycannons ignored all invulnerable saves, not just those on infantry models or those on Daemon models.

 

I'll be allowing any Nid player I face to ignore non-terrain cover saves on vehicles. :)

[DarkGuard]

Well looking at the Tyranid Hive's own argument about this, the argument swung in favour of no cover saves beyond cover for vehicles (surprise I know) and that page 62 of the BRB basically says that in regards to cover, what you apply to infantry you apply to vehicles, although obviously vehicles still need 50% obstruction etc.

 

Here's the link for those interested in seeing how they're argument came out, I believe the conclusion was a post by nim a few posts down on the first page:

 

http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/index....7018&page=9

[Ah-a-nothepsis]

GW and there halfthought answers.

 

You mean interns, I think

 

:)

[Frosty the Pyro]

there is no point to this thread, the FAQ was not an errata, therefor the rule of the impaler cannons stand. And the rule in question does not differentiate about wounds or penitrating/glancing hit.

 

The question was answered truefully, but that in no way implies anything about the seperate question of vehicle hits, though if it were asked as well, it would also be "no."

[Captain Idaho]

I think we can expect this FAQ to change in the future to fix this whole mess. Impaler Cannon ignoring cover saves for moving fast is a stretch but makes sense in that they are guided missiles, though why this is the case but other races missiles (which would clearly be guided) don't, makes little sense. Similarly, the weapon should not ignore force fields like Shield of Sanguinius or Kustom Force Fields, or smoke launchers.

 

It's a mess so needs cleaning up. Unfortunately it certainly appears they ignore those things right now, and there will be players who insist on ignoring smoke and the like, but a fair opponent shouldn't force such an issue.

 

I'm inclined to hold true to the fact wounds equates armour penetrate and glances, it's just not stated as such.

[Spacefrisian]

I think we can expect this FAQ to change in the future to fix this whole mess. Impaler Cannon ignoring cover saves for moving fast is a stretch but makes sense in that they are guided missiles, though why this is the case but other races missiles (which would clearly be guided) don't, makes little sense. Similarly, the weapon should not ignore force fields like Shield of Sanguinius or Kustom Force Fields, or smoke launchers.

 

It's a mess so needs cleaning up. Unfortunately it certainly appears they ignore those things right now, and there will be players who insist on ignoring smoke and the like, but a fair opponent shouldn't force such an issue.

 

I'm inclined to hold true to the fact wounds equates armour penetrate and glances, it's just not stated as such.

 

 

At least i have a hardbook cover rule book, so i can show it to them and smash some sense into them :)

[Frosty the Pyro]

I think we can expect this FAQ to change in the future to fix this whole mess. Impaler Cannon ignoring cover saves for moving fast is a stretch but makes sense in that they are guided missiles, though why this is the case but other races missiles (which would clearly be guided) don't, makes little sense. Similarly, the weapon should not ignore force fields like Shield of Sanguinius or Kustom Force Fields, or smoke launchers.

 

It's a mess so needs cleaning up. Unfortunately it certainly appears they ignore those things right now, and there will be players who insist on ignoring smoke and the like, but a fair opponent shouldn't force such an issue.

 

I'm inclined to hold true to the fact wounds equates armour penetrate and glances, it's just not stated as such.

 

Actualy it makes perfect sense for those weapons to ignore smoke launchers, though you are right that kustom force feild and sheild of sangunius seems odd, but it seams no more odd than it does for a flamer, or air bursting grenade launcher, or any of the other cover ignoring weapons to ignore a kustom force feild either, but they do. Just like it doesnt make sense for the stealth USR to enhance them (but it does). Those rules to make sense should provide inv saves, not cover, but they dont which has and will continue to provide weird rule interactions with anything that messes with cover saves.

[Captain Idaho]

I was referring to how it doesn't make sense from the perspective of other guided weapons not ignoring the same cover. Do we really think no race in the 41st millenium has guided missiles? Even Tau who have rules to repersent guided missiles?

 

Essentially the Impaler Cannon is intended to flash over intervening objects and that's how it's described, but the rulingd GW provides, in part because of the questions asked, do not make this clear. So we get a whole host of new rules for a weapon which was initially designed to work a different way according to the original wording of the rule.

 

***EDITED*** Oh and I have had a thought and I would like to say I feel the term for cover does not affect Kustom Force Fields, skimmers moving flat out, smoke launchers or the like. The rules and questions in the FAQ actually refer to "Cover", not items or actions which infer "Cover Saves". It is a confusion between cover and cover saves which people misinterpret.

 

Think of "Cover Saves" as a result. We have several ways to get Cover Saves, one of which shares a word but is not the same and that is Cover. You get cover saves from;

 

Cover. E.g. Being partially obsured etc.

 

A Skimmer moving Flat Out.

 

Wargear and abilities.

 

Only cover has been described as being ignored in a particular circumstance by the Impaler Cannon, therefore it doesn't ignore cover saves for Smoke, wargear or anything else. It's pretty conclusive actually, when you separate the confusion between cover saves and cover.

[Gentlemanloser]

Only cover has been described as being ignored in a particular circumstance by the Impaler Cannon

 

Actually, as per the OP and the quoted FAQ, it's 'cover saves' and not cover.

[Captain Idaho]

Only cover has been described as being ignored in a particular circumstance by the Impaler Cannon

 

Actually, as per the OP and the quoted FAQ, it's 'cover saves' and not cover.

 

You are right 100%. Typed it at work and only went from the quote in Codex Tyranids posted above and not the FAQ on the 1st post.

 

How embarrassing.

 

Then I refer back to my initial post in this thread; it's a mess not anticipated by GW when they read the question incorrectly/insufficiently.

[Gentlemanloser]

Oh totally agree.

 

GW fumbled the ball on this on. They tried to answer a specific question, and broke it for everything else...

[Something Wycked]

I wouldn't go that far, GL. It isn't broken for everything else; it just requires more effort to interpret the intent correctly ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

LoL!

 

As it stands, you wouldn't get Stealth, or 'Shrouding' or SMF cover saves. Becuase they answered the question about terrain based cover saves badly. :cuss

[Something Wycked]

You would get the benefits of Stealth & Shrouding, etc., if the models were in/touching terrain. :cuss

[Gentlemanloser]

You'd get it from the terrain itself, but you'd get no external benefits.

 

So if you were pathfinders in 4+ Ruins your cover saves would be 4+, not 2+.

[DarkGuard]

I don't think this is true. Stealth isn't a cover save in itself, but rather a modification of one. So a Pathfinder squad would still get a 2+ from area terrain as they're in area terrain, meeting one of the requirements of getting cover from impaler cannons.

[igotsmeakabob!!]

Wait, so do Impaler Cannons ignore stuff like Smoke Launchers and Shield of Sanguinius for vehicles?

Turbo boost saves for bikes? 4+ cover for flat-out fast skimmers?

[ShinyRhino]

Wait, so do Impaler Cannons ignore stuff like Smoke Launchers and Shield of Sanguinius for vehicles?

Turbo boost saves for bikes? 4+ cover for flat-out fast skimmers?

 

They ignore every one of those things.

[Gentlemanloser]

I don't think this is true. Stealth isn't a cover save in itself, but rather a modification of one. So a Pathfinder squad would still get a 2+ from area terrain as they're in area terrain, meeting one of the requirements of getting cover from impaler cannons.

 

Depends on how :) you want to get over the FAQ.

 

What's the cover save of a Ruin? 4+ by the BRB.

 

So if you shoot pathfinders/scouts in a Ruin, what save would the *Terrain* itself give?

 

4+

 

Anything else is not provided by the Terrain itself, so you could argue it's ignored.

[DarkGuard]

But Stealth isn't a cover save, it's a cover save modification. It doesn't grant cover IIRC (things like Shrouding being their own rule etc). So the impaler cannon has no effect.

[Gentlemanloser]

Agreed. The issue would be choosing to argue over whether you can use a rule to auguement the cover save a bit of terrain gives you or not.

 

A ruin gives you 4+. If shot in a ruin, you should only get a 4+ save.

 

And at the end of the day, what is the difference between a 'cover save' and a 'cover save modification'? Are these defined anywhere? Is the +2 to cover saves Pathfinders get, actually a 'cover save', (same for stealth) or not? If it's not a 'cover save', then you shouldn't really be 'saving' wounds on a 2 or 3 when in a ruin, right?

 

But hey, it's not something I'd argue for. :D

 

It's still a *very* badly answered FAQ. ;)