News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?  (Read 12251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HitmanSteve

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Eldar, Tau
"Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« on: September 25, 2012, 11:40:44 PM »
Looking at BRB pg. 38, you will find the rules for both "Ignores Cover" and "Jink".  From reading the rules for the former, it is only applicable in regards to wounds, with no mention of armor penetration.  Is this covered elsewhere, or would a skimmer be able to make a cover save against an "Ignores Cover" shot while a jetbike (having wounds instead of an armor value) would not?

Thanks.

Offline Crawfskeezen

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 189
  • Country: ca
  • The Emperor Protects
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Imperial Navy, Dark Angels
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2012, 11:53:09 PM »
To the letter of the rules on p.38, I believe you are correct. Ignore cover specifies only wounds.

I can only deduce that the assumed "cover" save of the Jink rule applies to the fact that skimmers and flyers are hovering or flying above the battlefield (as opposed to being physically behind cover) therefore making them more difficult targets to pick out/hit (moving on an x,y,z plane). Where as bikes and jetbikes are (more or less) on the ground (moving on only an x,y plane).

Though one could make a similar argument to flyers and skimmers for a jetbike.

One thing that comes up is flying MC's that are diving, which also gain Jink. One inflicts wounds on them and doesn't roll for armour pen. So in this regard they get the short end of a rather nasty point-ed stick.

Whats that I hear? A senior member coming to disabuse me?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 01:58:06 AM by Crawfskeezen »
CO 46th Frostshields

"Relish The Cold, Freeze The Foe"

7th W/D/L

IG 1/0/0

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2012, 12:04:18 PM »
A senior member coming to disabuse you?  Try a senior member trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about?

As for the question, I checked in the FAQ and there is nothing to counter this, so it does appear that Ignore cover does only work on wounds.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Crawfskeezen

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 189
  • Country: ca
  • The Emperor Protects
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Imperial Navy, Dark Angels
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2012, 02:27:04 PM »
Easy GBL, no need for that. What part of it confuses you?
CO 46th Frostshields

"Relish The Cold, Freeze The Foe"

7th W/D/L

IG 1/0/0

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2012, 03:23:26 PM »
Probably the bit where you're trying to justify how the rules work through the use of background and narrative description. We really need to avoid doing that as it goes horribly wrong very quickly and only confuses people when it comes to how the rules actually work.  ;)

The disabuse will continue until morale improves.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Crawfskeezen

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 189
  • Country: ca
  • The Emperor Protects
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Imperial Navy, Dark Angels
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2012, 04:09:08 PM »
From reading the rules for the former, it is only applicable in regards to wounds, with no mention of armor penetration.

Sorry, I thought this thread was about why a wound based creature is treated differently than an armour value based model (vehicle) for the purposes of cover and ignore cover.  :o

At any rate, does anyone know of any precedent for flying MC's other than the RAW which has been formerly discussed?

One thing that comes up is flying MC's that are diving, which also gain Jink. One inflicts wounds on them and doesn't roll for armour pen. So in this regard they get the short end of a rather nasty point-ed stick.

FAQ or otherwise.

Don't worry, I've read the Forum Rules, I'm not trying to add any hearsay, nor trying to incite anyone. I apologize.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 04:14:00 PM by Crawfskeezen »
CO 46th Frostshields

"Relish The Cold, Freeze The Foe"

7th W/D/L

IG 1/0/0

Offline HitmanSteve

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Eldar, Tau
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #6 on: October 1, 2012, 11:53:32 PM »
Another related question.  Would this affect an exarch using the "crack shot" ability?  I would think not, as the exarch power does not specify that it uses the "ignores cover" special rule, although the end effect is very similar, but I am not entirely sure.

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #7 on: October 2, 2012, 12:18:43 AM »
Crack Shot would be effective against Jink because as you say, it doesn't use the Ignores Cover USR and has its own special rules which don't have the restriction.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline WisdomLS

  • Ork Yoof
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • Country: gb
  • BLOOD FOR THE ..... emperor?
  • Armies: SM (BA, BT, DA), Orks, Daemons, CSM, GK, IG
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #8 on: October 2, 2012, 08:20:58 AM »
It maybe o the letter of the rules but I would feel like a bit of a git telling my opponent that I'm taking a cover save against his "Ignores cover" weapon, its kind of read as written IMO.

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #9 on: October 2, 2012, 10:25:51 AM »
That would be like saying you would feel like a git for telling your opponent that your Dreadknight strikes at St10 because the Nemesis Doom Fists are Dreadnought close combat weapons and he isn't a dreadnought.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #10 on: October 2, 2012, 10:52:04 AM »
I agree with WisdomLS, there comes a point where attempting to enforce RAW becomes totally non-sensical. In this case attempting to tell someone their ignoring cover weapon doesn't ignore your cover is unlikely to be good for your reputation.

Maybe it's not explicitly clear but it's a case where the answer is sufficiently obvious.
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #11 on: October 2, 2012, 04:30:18 PM »
I agree with WisdomLS, there comes a point where attempting to enforce RAW becomes totally non-sensical. In this case attempting to tell someone their ignoring cover weapon doesn't ignore your cover is unlikely to be good for your reputation.

Maybe it's not explicitly clear but it's a case where the answer is sufficiently obvious.

This isn't a case of twisting words around to get the RAW to find a loop hole to specifically benefit you.  This is a change of edition and the wording of the rule is very clear in mentioning wounds. 

Trying to claim that cover saves cannot be taken against successful armour penetration rolls would be akin to saying that you can use the Shred special rule (page 41 of the BDB) to reroll failed armour penetration rolls, which is clearly not the case.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Travellar

  • Lieutenant
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 618
  • Country: 00
  • Hey Farley, call headquarters.
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #12 on: October 3, 2012, 03:48:18 PM »
page 74-75, vehicles and cover; third bullet.
"...it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound..."

It's the words "exactly like" that really stick out for me.  if it is exactly like, than it's well, exactly like.  Not different in some particular regard.  Exactly. Like.

"he's either the most brilliant troll ever, or he's crazy." -Bloodhawk

Offline HitmanSteve

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Eldar, Tau
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #13 on: October 3, 2012, 04:04:55 PM »
page 74-75, vehicles and cover; third bullet.
"...it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound..."

It's the words "exactly like" that really stick out for me.  if it is exactly like, than it's well, exactly like.  Not different in some particular regard.  Exactly. Like.



I don't think this is quite applicable.

Yes.  Taking the save for a vehicle is "exactly like" taking it for a wound.  Whether or not you are eligible for that save is a different story.  Taking an armor save against an ap5 weapon is exactly like taking an armor save against an ap4 weapon.  However, if you have 4+ armor, then the ap value will change whether or not you get to take that save in the first place.

It maybe o the letter of the rules but I would feel like a bit of a git telling my opponent that I'm taking a cover save against his "Ignores cover" weapon, its kind of read as written IMO.

It cuts both ways - I think I'd feel like a git for expecting my opponent to give up a save he is entitled to.
« Last Edit: October 3, 2012, 04:06:08 PM by HitmanSteve »

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #14 on: October 3, 2012, 08:14:58 PM »
page 74-75, vehicles and cover; third bullet.
"...it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound..."

It's the words "exactly like" that really stick out for me.  if it is exactly like, than it's well, exactly like.  Not different in some particular regard.  Exactly. Like.

Good find, I think that's the proof required. Ignores cover would work against vehicles exacltly like it wrks against models with wounds.
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #15 on: October 3, 2012, 10:36:28 PM »
Selective quoting to the rescue it seems, conveniently leaving out the part of the same sentence that says "If the vehicle suffers a glancing or penetrating hit..."

Ignores Cover still does not mention penetrating hits, glancing hits, or armour penetration rolls at all.  The fact that the model must take a save in the exact same manner as a non-vehicle model would does not mean that the hit the vehicle suffers magically becomes a wound.

Quite frankly, your side of the discussion is nothing more than a carry over from a previous edition where there was not a specific rule governing "Ignores Cover" and was dealt with individually in each codex where they were not specific against what type of result the rule applied to.

Let's look at the Whirlwind. 
Quote from: Codex: Space Marines; Page 79; Whirlwind; Whirlwind Missile Launcher; Incendiary Castellan Missiles
*Ignores Cover:  Cover saves cannot be taken against wounds caused by incendiary missiles.

Now compare that to the wording in the rule book where it specifically mentions "wounds" and this discussion really is over.  Regardless of whether or not you think it is "right" or not, it is what the rules say it is. 
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #16 on: October 4, 2012, 06:01:12 AM »
Selective quoting to the rescue it seems, conveniently leaving out the part of the same sentence that says "If the vehicle suffers a glancing or penetrating hit..."

Really? And when else would a vehicle take a cover save? You haven't responded to the point at all, you're just trying to use a cheap throwaway to sweep it under the rug.

Quote
Ignores Cover still does not mention penetrating hits, glancing hits, or armour penetration rolls at all.  The fact that the model must take a save in the exact same manner as a non-vehicle model would does not mean that the hit the vehicle suffers magically becomes a wound.

Obviously not, but you do work out if the vehicle gets a cover save EXACTLY LIKE a non-vehicle model. You're simply attempting to claim the general rules for cover saves overwrite the modifications for vehicle... What next? You'll tell us the basic movement rules demand all vehicles move like infantry because they only talk about infantry? It's the same logic.



Quite frankly, your side of the discussion is nothing more than a carry over from a previous edition....[/quote]

Quite frankly, your side of the discussion is nothing more than a desire to argue for the least sensible solution possible regardless of the rules (we're not here to discuss whirlwinds, irrelevant rules are irrelevant), in my experience a very common behaviour of extreme RAW advocates.
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline HitmanSteve

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Eldar, Tau
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #17 on: October 4, 2012, 08:30:54 AM »

Obviously not, but you do work out if the vehicle gets a cover save EXACTLY LIKE a non-vehicle model.

No, it means that a cover save has the same effect against an armor penetration roll as it does against a wound (it negates it).

It does not address whether or not you can get that save in the first place.  The simple fact is that "ignores cover" only mentions wounds.  Maybe it's an oversight, but until it is FAQed to mention armor penetration, then it is only effective against targets with wounds.

My question was mostly in regards to whether or not it was addressed elsewhere.  It seems to not be, so the wording of the special rule is all that you have to go on, and wounds are all it works for.


Offline KJQ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
  • Country: ca
  • Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #18 on: October 4, 2012, 09:51:22 AM »
First, let me say I'm no RAW fanatic, so I often discuss making a few mutually agreed house rules to adjust for RAI on some issues in friendly games. This would be one of them. Since we're told to only discuss RAW in this forum, that I am doing.

That said, my RAW take on the "Ignores Cover" special rule in the rulebook is that it applies only to weapons with that rule that are shooting at models that can take wounds (i.e. not vehicles).  For example. if I shoot at a skimmer in cover with my Thunderfire Cannon using the airburst type of detonation, then the Raider DOES get a cover save against glances and penetrating hits. That is because the TFC has the "Ignores Cover" special rule (and the "against wounds" modifier in the codex).  This would apply to any other weapon that has the "Ignores Cover" special rule, or has a description in it's codex that says "... against wounds".

To my knowledge (I don't have every codex), the only weapon that currently explicitly has the "Ignores Cover" special rule in it's codex is the Thunderfire Cannon.  All the other ones have separate descriptions which indicate under what circumstance the weapon ignores cover saves. Some include the words "... against wounds" (e.g. Inferno cannon), and some have no such limiting qualifier (e.g. Deathstrike Missile, Hellfury Missiles, Eradicator Nova Cannon).

The old rulebook had the "against wounds" modifier in the description of template weapons, then new rulebook gives template weapons the "ignores cover" special rule which also has this limiting modifier so effectively there is no change for template weapons.

So in summary, if a weapon has the "Ignores Cover" special rule, or is a generic template weapon, or has the "against wounds" limiting modifier in it's codex entry, then vehicles hit by them are entitled to cover saves (if applicable) such as conferred by the Jink special rule or being sufficiently obscured from the firing model.  If the weapon does not have the "Ignores Cover" special rule and does not have the "against wounds" limiting modifier in it's codex entry, then vehicles hit by them do not get a cover save (from Jinx or otherwise).

Again, I don't play it that way (unless forced to), but that is what the RAW is as I understand it.  Hopefully GW will fix this with an FAQ before they nerf more weapons by giving them the "Ignores Cover" rule in their new codexes.
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school. " - Albert Einstein

Offline Travellar

  • Lieutenant
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 618
  • Country: 00
  • Hey Farley, call headquarters.
Re: "Jink" and "Ignores Cover" special rule?
« Reply #19 on: October 4, 2012, 11:39:37 AM »
How termagants deal with an "ignores cover" types of weapon: (usually flamethrowers or heavy flamers)
-"aww, my termagants..." remove models.
How a Rhino deals with "ignores cover" types of weapons:
"Aww, my Rhino..." marks damage or removes model.

Yes, what we do to cause the damage or wounds differs, and how we eventually deal with them differs, as described in relevent sections.  but as for cover saves?  page 75, "exactly like".

@ HitmanSteve: it is addressed elsewhere, on page 75.
Quote
I don't think this is quite applicable.
not quite getting this "exactly like" portion, are you?

@Lomandalis
Quote
Ignores Cover still does not mention penetrating hits, glancing hits, or armour penetration rolls at all.  The fact that the model must take a save in the exact same manner as a non-vehicle model would does not mean that the hit the vehicle suffers magically becomes a wound.
I never claimed it became a wound.  I claim the phrase "Exactly like" means you treat it exactly like a wound for purposes of taking cover saves. (which in this case means not at all)
"he's either the most brilliant troll ever, or he's crazy." -Bloodhawk

 


Powered by EzPortal