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.

Just a very quick check, does this ability work on vehicles? I'm not debating the issue, I know by now there must be a strong answer one way or the other.. Just want to check.

Thanks

By RaW it gives Vehicles a cover save that they can only use against wounds. The only situation in the rules that allows a Vehicle to take a cover save against penetrating and glancing hits is if the Vehicle is obscured and Stormcaller doe snot grant the status "obscured".

However by the rules it is pretty clear that as you get the cover save you know that as you are a vehicle you'll be taking it against glancing and penetrating hits rather than wounds.

Don't listen to Flingitnow, for some reason he thinks the RaW isn't the rules.

Storm Called does not work for vehicles. It's that simple. it gives the vehicle a 5+ cover save, but this save can only be used against wounds, which a vehicle does not have.

/facepalm @ RaW fanatics

@Phish Skills; the rules are the only way we can garner facts about the writer's intentions; it's wise to stick to them as closely as possible. What we want the rules to be and what they are rarely share common ground.

As much as I wish Gwar! was wrong (stormcaller working for vehicles makes perfect sense to me), his logic is hard to refute; it's all there in pretty plain black and white that it does not function. Stormcaller's only real use now is to give cover to a unit screening the rune priest's rhino/raider, or to protect the space wolves (poorly) from being hosed by AP3- shooting after losing their rhino.

The SW FAQ changed the wording of Stormcaller from protecting squads to protecting units. So whatever can be defined as a unit is protected. I believe the intention to do this was for storm caller to protect vehicles.

If only, Hobbs. The primary issue is that yes, it does grant a cover save of 5+ to your vehicles. The problem is, cover saves are only ever taken against wounds. Now, the exception to this obviously is vehicles, who may take a cover save against penetrating hits or glancing hits only if they are also obscured. The rulebook's wording on this is very specific and clear. Every other instance in which a vehicle gains a cover save without 50% of it's facing being covered (skimmers moving fast, smoke launchers, etc.) all also cause the vehicle to be obscured, allowing the save to be taken. As has been stated above, the tanks have a cover save but are not allowed to use it due to not being obscured at least 50%.

The wording was changed, in my opinion, because the word squad doesn't show up anywhere else in the codex besides fluff, whereas units does. They were trying to improve consistency in terminology; Something GW often falls painfully short on.

General Hobbs wrote:The SW FAQ changed the wording of Stormcaller from protecting squads to protecting units. So whatever can be defined as a unit is protected. I believe the intention to do this was for storm caller to protect vehicles.

You may believe this - however the main reason it was changed is that Squads did not exist in the codex, therefore the power worked on nobody.

there is nothing that states the intention is it should work on everything, and if it did ALL they needed to do was add a line stating it.

Gwar! wrote:Don't listen to Flingitnow, for some reason he thinks the RaW isn't the rules.

Storm Called does not work for vehicles. It's that simple. it gives the vehicle a 5+ cover save, but this save can only be used against wounds, which a vehicle does not have.

Gwar, I have read your FAQs posted here before I agree with almost every ruling and interpretation you have posted. However, in this one instance I will attempt to disagree with you. (Don't beat me down too hard with your response)

Codex Space Wolves page 37
"At the beginning of his turn, the Rune Priest may summon a storm of psychic power that is centered around himself. Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly squads within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save."

The Space Wolf FAQ then states.
"Page 37, Storm Caller. Change:
‘he and all friendly squads within 6" benefit from
a 5+ cover save’
to
‘he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a
5+ cover save’"

A vehicle is a unit and therefore a 5+ cover save is conferred to the vehicle. Next we look at page 62 of the BRB to see how a cover save for a vehicle works.
Page 62 of BRB
"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 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table."

This is a very clear definition of how a cover save is applied to a vehicle. Being obscured grants you a cover save. Then you see what kind of cover save it is and roll for it. Storm caller grants you a cover save. It is locked in at a 5+ and you roll for it. Nothing in the codex entry for the power says the save is only for wounds. Additionally, the BRB does not say you must be obscured to claim a cover save, only that being obscured grants you one and then details how cover saves work for vehicles.

Note:
The rule book does say you need to be 50% obscured to claim to be in cover and that in this case, you count as being obscured. The storm caller power does not state that the unit may claim to be in cover or obscured. Instead, it automatically grants the 5+ save, bypassing the obscured status completely.

So, I may have missed something but the RAW seems to indicate that the power does in fact work on vehicles. In addition, if storm caller was not intended to function on vehicle units, then no FAQ would have been necessary as "squad" would have covered all non-vehicle units in the codex. Or, they could have made the FAQ ruling to be "non-vehicle units" instead of choosing to just use "units". It appears to me that there is a RAW arguement for the power to work on vehicles and that the RAI for the power is in favor of it functioning on vehicles. I know this isn't relevant, but it should also be noted that it did function on vehicles in the previous version of the codex so it is basically an unchanged power from the last codex. If I am wrong I would like to know where my reasoning went awry, since this is how we have been playing the power in our area.

Thanks

And as I have said, the Power says they have a 5+ cover save. It does not grant Obscured. Note the first line: "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

A Vehicle that is not obscured and has a cover save may only use that cover save against wounds.

Vehicles do not have wounds.

Gwar! wrote:And as I have said, the Power says they have a 5+ cover save. It does not grant Obscured. Note the first line: "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

A Vehicle that is not obscured and has a cover save may only use that cover save against wounds.

Vehicles do not have wounds.

There are two sentences in the rule book for vehicles and cover saves. The first details how a vehicle can receive a cover save.

"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 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). "

I agree with you 100% that this sentence does not apply because the vehicle is not obscured. It details that obscured vehicles are granted a cover save exactly like a non-vehicle model would have against a wound.

So far we are in agreement, the next sentence is where we seem to differ on our RAW reading.

"If the (cover) save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table."

This is a completely separate sentence from the first one. It simply states that when a vehicle passes a cover save, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the damage table. This appears to be very clear RAW as to how cover saves work for vehicles. The condition of being obscured from the first sentence only grants the cover save to the vehicle. The second sentence that has no obscured restriction is what tells you how to apply a cover save to a vehicle.

That is how my group sees it and plays the storm caller power. Does this explain my reasoning better?

Thanks

wolvesoffenris wrote:That is how my group sees it and plays the storm caller power. Does this explain my reasoning better?

No, not really, since your Group is ignoring the rules.

The problem is the language in the second sentence refers specifically to the cover save granted by being obscured. It does not refer to cover saves in general.

If the rules said 'when a vehicle takes a cover save it can ignore the glancing or penetrating hit the save is taken against' then the vehicle would be able to do so.

Heck even if it said 'If a cover save is passed by a vehicle...' Instead is refers specifically to 'the cover save.'

Can i try to simplify?

Storm Called grants 5+ cover save, that is all.

Obscured status occurs if the vehicle is hull down behind an obstacle or by a special rule that grants obscured status. (read tau disruption pods)

Storm called does not grant the obscured status to any unit within range.

Storm called also does not place an object onto the table to enable the vehicle to be hull down/obscured.

Vehicles can only take a cover save if they are obscured.

This is a very clear definition of how a cover save is applied to a vehicle. Being obscured grants you a cover save

As Gwar is saying, and because storm called specifically does not state that it obscures the target, the vehicle does not get that cover save.

Actually what gwar (not to sinlge you out mate, you are the only Nic I remember on that side) said is 1: cover saves can ony be taken for wounds, which vehicles don't have. Ergo vehicles can't take saves. (this is wrong from the BBB wording on vehicles and cover saves via obscurement).
Later the RaW side moved from that clearly wrong stance to: only if a vehicle is obscured can it make a save. This is also wrong, as that side is subconsiously adding the term "only" in front of the rules which begin "If a vehicle is obscured..." clearly if a vehicle is obscured it gets a save, but to assume that is the only situation by adding to the RAW definition seems a bit mute when you are clinging to it like a creationist to the old testiment

Kiwidru wrote:Actually what gwar (not to sinlge you out mate, you are the only Nic I remember on that side) said is 1: cover saves can ony be taken for wounds, which vehicles don't have. Ergo vehicles can't take saves. (this is wrong from the BBB wording on vehicles and cover saves via obscurement)

Sorry, but this is NOT What we were saying, at all.

Vehicles can take cover saves "if the target is obscured". Never, at any other time, can a vehicle take cover saves vs Glancing or Pen Hits. If he has a cover save AND is obscured, yay, he can use it. If he has a cover save and IS NOT obscured, then he cannot use it, as that cover save only works for wounds.

sorry kiwidru...

let me quote qwar from several posts prior:

And as I have said, the Power says they have a 5+ cover save. It does not grant Obscured. Note the first line: "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

RAW definition is not moot, its rules, the definition states, if it is obscured, it gets to use a cover save. No other cases.

It doesn't state "If the target is obscured, or otherwise granted a cover save, and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

You can choose to play it another way if your gaming group wants to ignore the explicitness of the statement, but i would expect that in tournie it would be played as RAW.

I think in this instance it's pretty clear that it should NOT affect vehicles. As Gwar! said, it does not grant the vehicle "Obscured" status and thus does nothing for the vehicle (the cover save is for wounds only).

If it specified giving vehicles a cover save, then I would attribute it to poor writing, but understand that RAI it should give vehicles a save. HOWEVER, this is not the case, therefore I must say that this doesn't work for vehicles, and there's no way to know if RAI it should or should not.

Whew, y'all are quick. I get that If a vehicle is obscured it gets a save, no arguements. However, I think the Raw side is making subcoscious additions and assumptions, which defeats the moral highground of the hardliner. Nowhere does it say that is the only possible situation that a vehicle could get a save, it just gives the most anticipated situation involving terrain.
My thought process is along the lines of this: If you agree with me you are smart and understand logic. It seems that the Raw side would claim the statement said: "only if you agree with me are you smart and understand logic". When ironically, we know that you can be smart and understand logic, while disagreeing with me. So everyone who agrees with me is smart, but the possibility to be smart is not solely reliant on you sharing my views. Just like every obscured vehicle gets a cover save, the the possibility for a save is not solely reliant on being obscured. (in this case from a spell)
Edit: on Iphone, hard to type

Kiwidru wrote:Nowhere does it say that is the only possible situation that a vehicle could get a save,

Nowhere does it say I can't take a hammer to your kneecaps whenever I fail a save either.

The Rules tell you what you CAN do, not what you can't. The rules say you can take a cover save vs Pen or Glance if the vehicle is Obscured. It does not allow you to take them at any other time.

I think you will find that the RAW side is reading the rules as they are written and interpreting them to be inclusive rules.

So when dealing with cover saves for vehicles, which is a separate subset of rules, where it says 'cover saves are allowed when the vehicle is obscured' and nothing else, then by inclusive rules you can include that as a thing that can be done, but if it isnt written on the page then its not allowed because you cant include it.

the argument is not "you are wrong cause you dont agree with us" it is "you are wrong because you are not reading the writing on the page" or possibly "your interpretation of what is written is wrong"

At no point have we said you are wrong because we personally disagree with your religious, sexual or political position. We are not saying you are wrong because you have a different racial background, which is what you are attempting to allude to, we dont know any of that, we are saying you are wrong, because at no point does it say you can do the task you are aiming to do.

Slow your roll tiny, you are digging holes for yourself. If the rules only tell you what you can do, and not what you can't (even though logically, those are two sides of the same line) then the sw rules clearly say you can get a save on all units (not all non vehicles), and since like you said, the rules only say what you can do, you can use it on any unit within range. You can save if obscured, check. You can save if it tell you you can, check. No rules contradictions, check. I'm not the one pulling cannots out of the magic hat

You can save if it tell you you can, check.

Please quote, with page number, the line that states in regards to vehicle cover saves that cover saves can be granted to a vehicle by anything other than obscured status?

I'm not a magician, i'm looking for evidence that something exists.

You've decided to get involved with a question and don't like the answer you have been given. You have a choice now. Go down the rabbit hole and attempt to understand why the answer has been given as it has, or just ignore it because it doesn't suit your reality. If you want to argue it, provide evidence of the argument as opposed to claiming someone is making stuff up because you cant support your argument with written fact.

Codex Space Wolves page 37
"At the beginning of his turn, the Rune Priest may summon a storm of psychic power that is centered around himself. Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly squads within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save."
With FaQ edit from squads to units, which vehicles are.

In return I would like the page number where it says that a coversave cannot be taken unless a vehicle is obscured. (note that is different than saying if a vehicle is obscured it gets a save)

Okay we have Tau Disrution pods, the famous Ork Kustom Force Field and Smurfs Smoke, all of which specifically tell us that the vehicle is obscured.

Yet for an entry which doesn't have this line in it you want the benifit? Right....

Kiwidru wrote:
In return I would like the page number where it says that a coversave cannot be taken unless a vehicle is obscured. (note that is different than saying if a vehicle is obscured it gets a save)

That is not how the burden of proof of a permissive ruleset works.

There are rules for cover saving throws, they are detailed on pages 21-24.
There are rules for what allows a vehicle to use a cover saving throw in a different way, and they specifically require obscured status.

YOU have to prove that you have permission to do something, we do not have to prove that you cannot.

No, actualloy, it isnt

The rules are permissive. Cover Saves save against WOunds, page 21.

If you want them to save against hits, you follow page 62, which starts "If you are obscrued"

So you parse the sentence and see if you can answer "true" to the If statement. If you can answer "true", you are allowed to convert your save to one that works on Hits.

if you answer false - well, sorry, there is no "false" - you dont get to do anything. You cannot use your save against hits, as you have no permission to do so. Stormcaller does NOT make you obscured, and therefore the Save you HAVE only works against Wounds.

The rules are permissive, if you are seriuously stating they are not, then I win on a 2+, as nowhere does it state I can't.

I don't want anything, I don't play sw. Nor would I care on the table one way or another. Those 3 give obscure, which is why they arnt in discussion, but they have no bearing on the crux of the discussion; the raw states they get a save without being obscured. no where does it say you MUST be obscured to use a coversave, only that IF you are obscured you get one.

Wrong, the RAW says the exact opposite.

THEY HAVE A COVERSAVE. WE AGREE ON THIS.

OK, can you understand this is *not* about having a cover save, please?

The rules state that IF YOU ARE OBSCURED your cover save, which ONLY works against wounds, then works against hits.

If you simply havea cover save it only works against wounds UNLESS you are also obscured. Nopt obscured? You dont have permission to USE the save agaisnt HITS.

So if I had something like friendly troops in front obscuring the vehicle, since it would then both be obscured, and have a save, it could be used?