Ignores Cover special rule and vehicles

[bystrom]

The special rule Ignores Cover only mentions no cover saves from wounds suffered. We've played it to also include cover saves for vehicles, who don't suffer wounds, instead suffering glancing and penetrating hits. We've found it the most reasonable.

 

The question I'm asking is then, is there any rule supporting this interpretation, or is the RAW interpretation that Ignores Cover only works against non-vehicle cover saves?

[Raeven]

I think it is a stretch to argue that wounds and glances/penetrations are different. Otherwise, why would there be rules to allow vehicles cover saves at all?

 

Now if you are arguing that the defender should roll his cover or invulnerable saves before the attacker rolls his glances and pens, removing saved dice from the to hit pool, I could back that argument.

[wheelballer]

I don't have my codex handy at the moment, but my group always plays is that cover saves work the same way for vehicles and non-vehicles, with the obvious change from wounds to glances/penetrations. For example, the skimmers and their cover saves. If you fire at a vehicle, you would roll to hit, and then roll to pen/glance. If you succeed in both (hit and then glance/pen) the opponent may then roll a cover save, just as they would if it were a non-infantry model. Along the same ruling, if the weapon you fire with ignores cover, the vehicle would not benefit from cover the same way a non-vehicle would not either.

[Morollan]

The special rule Ignores Cover only mentions no cover saves from wounds suffered. We've played it to also include cover saves for vehicles, who don't suffer wounds, instead suffering glancing and penetrating hits. We've found it the most reasonable.

 

The question I'm asking is then, is there any rule supporting this interpretation, or is the RAW interpretation that Ignores Cover only works against non-vehicle cover saves?

 

The relevant rule is on page 75:

 

 

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

[bystrom]

I think it is a stretch to argue that wounds and glances/penetrations are different. Otherwise, why would there be rules to allow vehicles cover saves at all?

 

Now if you are arguing that the defender should roll his cover or invulnerable saves before the attacker rolls his glances and pens, removing saved dice from the to hit pool, I could back that argument.

I do believe there is a difference between wounds and glances/pens. Part of the rule that allows vehicles cover saves is quoted by Morollan. If they were the same, there are bound to be cases where something only causes wounds that could affect vehicles in a strange fashion. For example, would Soul Blaze work against vehicles? Which facing?

 

 

The special rule Ignores Cover only mentions no cover saves from wounds suffered. We've played it to also include cover saves for vehicles, who don't suffer wounds, instead suffering glancing and penetrating hits. We've found it the most reasonable.

 

The question I'm asking is then, is there any rule supporting this interpretation, or is the RAW interpretation that Ignores Cover only works against non-vehicle cover saves?

 

The relevant rule is on page 75:

 

>>> 

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

 

I was going to comment how I didn't think that quote was enough, before I realized it does say exactly. There really are no round-abouts with that word. You can't even try and use basic vs adv. against it: All cover saves taken by vehicles work exactly the same as those taken by non-vehicles.