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.

here is the link where its been debated i really dont feel like typing it all...

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=195136&st=100&gopid=2354248&#entry2354248

boils down to a shield giving 5+ cover to units, but not mentioning anything about vehicles getting obscured

i say it gives cover to infantry, but not vehicles due to page 21 BRB "what counts as cover?" and page 62 BRB "Vehicles and cover-obsured targets" saying they dont follow normal cover rules and then listing how it counts as getting cover...


thanks

TopC wrote:here is the link where its been debated i really dont feel like typing it all...

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=195136&st=100&gopid=2354248&#entry2354248

boils down to a shield giving 5+ cover to units, but not mentioning anything about vehicles getting obscured

i say it gives cover to infantry, but not vehicles due to page 21 BRB "what counts as cover?" and page 62 BRB "Vehicles and cover-obsured targets" saying they dont follow normal cover rules and then listing how it counts as getting cover...


thanks

This has been debated to death already on Dakka.
Shield of Sangy Boy
Storm Caller (Same Wording)

In a Nutshell, it gives a 5+ cover save to vehicles that can only be used when the vehicle suffers a wound. So if your vehicle suffers a wound, feel free to use the cover save.

That is the RAW.
The RAI is unknown.
The RAP is entirely up to you and your opponent/gaming group.

Sanctjud wrote:That is the RAW.
The RAI is unknown.
The RAP is entirely up to you and your opponent/gaming group.

I disagree. The RaI is what the authors wrote IMO.

Why is it that whenever people disagree with something, they are always quick to pull out "The RaI is unknown so the RaW must be Wrong" card? RaI is, in my opinion, exactly what the authors wrote. If they did not intend for Vehicles to not get the cover save, they would have added "Vehicles are also obscured with a 5+ cover save" to the rule. They didn't, so they intended for it not to work.

Gwar! wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:That is the RAW.
The RAI is unknown.
The RAP is entirely up to you and your opponent/gaming group.

I disagree. The RaI is what the authors wrote IMO.

Why is it that whenever people disagree with something, they are always quick to pull out "The RaI is unknown so the RaW must be Wrong" card? RaI is, in my opinion, exactly what the authors wrote. If they did not intend for Vehicles to not get the cover save, they would have added "Vehicles are also obscured with a 5+ cover save" to the rule. They didn't, so they intended for it not to work.

i agree w/ you gwar, no 5+ cover for the vehicle as the vehicle counts as having cover by its own clearly laid out definitions.

Quick Correction, I was supposed to say "if they DID intend" not "if they did not intend".

Dern Internet Gremlins and Typos.

And that my friends is what is called an Errata. If GW want it to affect vehicles, they had better issue one

Funny, as soon as I saw you posted, I had the same thought and wanted to edit my post...

Yes, the RAI is only known to the authors and unknown to everbody else.
As for the last part, that is reasonable, but who knows...maybe they did this purposefully to get a laugh out of it as they read Dakka...

Sanctjud wrote:Funny, as soon as I saw you posted, I had the same thought and wanted to edit my post...

Yes, the RAI is only known to the authors and unknown to everbody else.
As for the last part, that is reasonable, but who knows...maybe they did this purposefully to get a laugh out of it as they read Dakka...

True. We know they DO read dakka (Grumble Grumble SW FAQ Grumble) but I think if anything they would read Dakka and try to make things clearer, not even more unclear.

Gwar! wrote:Quick Correction, I was supposed to say "if they DID intend" not "if they did not intend".

Dern Internet Gremlins and Typos.

And that my friends is what is called an Errata. If GW want it to affect vehicles, they had better issue one

This proves that RAW does not equal RAI. A simple typo, or added/deleted word completely changes the meaning of a sentence. The people who write the book are not always the people that print the book. Things happen in the process, and printing errors occur.

i will agree that RAW is the only thing we know 100%, and RAI is just a guess, but that are not always the same.

jbunny wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Quick Correction, I was supposed to say "if they DID intend" not "if they did not intend".

Dern Internet Gremlins and Typos.

And that my friends is what is called an Errata. If GW want it to affect vehicles, they had better issue one

This proves that RAW does not equal RAI. A simple typo, or added/deleted word completely changes the meaning of a sentence. The people who write the book are not always the people that print the book. Things happen in the process, and printing errors occur.

i will agree that RAW is the only thing we know 100%, and RAI is just a guess, but that are not always the same.

And I would agree with you, except they have a way of correcting these mistakes, the on-line Errata. If they do not use it, we must assume there is no mistake and that what they wrote is what they intended. To do otherwise renders the game unplayable as I can claim XYZ is RaI while you claim ZYX is RaI and we end up having a Punch up in the Pub car park.

And before you cry "But it's only been out a few days", that is NO EXCUSE. If I can knock up 14-15 page FAQs in my spare time BEFORE THE CODEX COMES OUT, they can do it in a few days with paid employees. Sadly, they don't because they don't give a gak about the gamer anymore, they only care about selling Spess Marhines to 11 year olds.

A typo on the internet by someone that is not involved in Codex writing is irrefutable proof that RAW does not equal RAI?

Anyway, I really wished they did issue actual Errata (corrections by the author) as opposed to a 6 months late FAQ (not written by the author). What would be so hard about maintaining an errata list on their site that is updated at a regular interval (you could even have dates of last update)?

Fearspect wrote:What would be so hard about maintaining an errata list on their site that is updated at a regular interval (you could even have dates of last update)?

Nothing whatsoever. Hell, I would do it for a name in the credits and update 1 FAQ a Week. Sadly, GW think that Clear rules are for Evil and Mean WAAC Tournament gamers and that if you were just trying to have a good time you would work something out.

I for one do NOT consider 30 mins of pre game clarification fun.

The "people who print the book" as you reffer to them, are simply workers on a printing press that recieve a complete file of the book (usually a pdf) that is then loaded directly into the machine, so they are completely incapable of influencing how it comes out, let alone mess it up.
You clearly have little or no idea of how books are made nowadays and thats just fine, its really boring trust me.
The reason why GW rulebooks/codices are so damn confusing is the same reason they are usually full of typos as well, GW are too cheap to pay some people with actual knowledge of grammar and sentence structuring to read through their books before sending them out to be printed.
Your blaming a few, most likely, low paid technitians is just wrong, its GW's thurst for bloo... i mean money that causes these arguments.

HoverBoy wrote:The "people who print the book" as you reffer to them, are simply workers on a printing press that recieve a complete file of the book (usually a pdf) that is then loaded directly into the machine, so they are completely incapable of influencing how it comes out, let alone mess it up.
You clearly have little or no idea of how books are made nowadays and thats just fine, its really boring trust me.
The reason why GW rulebooks/codices are so damn confusing is the same reason they are usually full of typos as well, GW are too cheap to pay some people with actual knowledge of grammar and sentence structuring to read through their books before sending them out to be printed.
Your blaming a few, most likely, low paid technitians is just wrong, its GW's thurst for bloo... i mean money that causes these arguments.

To a point you are correct. The line workers have a hard time changing something, but the writers are not always the people thet determine the layout of the pages. Pictures, graphs, line breaks and things like that. That is usually done by someone else (GW might be different in this aspect but for text books it is the case) This is where the large number of mistakes occur. A lot of times when they want something changed they copy and paste, and this leads to words being left out. other times it is quicker to retype the text hence words being added. There is also the poor job GW does of proof reading things, esp the techical parts of their books.

Gwar@I do agree that an Erata would fix this, and once an Erata has been released it is safe to assume that it is RAW=RAI. But just because GW does a piss poor job of Customer service which I classify FAQ's and the like, does not mean RAW=RAI before the FAQ has been released.

Thats what i said they spring for a few extra people to do that and presto YMDC would get a lot less topics. Heck ill do it for free if it means i dont have to wait months for FAQ's that dont answer $hit.

HoverBoy wrote:Thats what i said they spring for a few extra people to do that and presto YMDC would get a lot less topics. Heck ill do it for free if it means i dont have to wait months for FAQ's that dont answer $hit.

I completely agree on this.

Gwar! wrote:And I would agree with you, except they have a way of correcting these mistakes, the on-line Errata. If they do not use it, we must assume there is no mistake and that what they wrote is what they intended.

Or, as is pointed out every time you make this claim, we can alternatively assume that they simply haven't bothered to issue an errata on it. An assumption which is backed up by GW's track record of slow and incomplete FAQ's that occasionally get updated as they feel like it.

To do otherwise renders the game unplayable as I can claim XYZ is RaI while you claim ZYX is RaI and we end up having a Punch up in the Pub car park.

Having differing opinions on RAI hardly makes the game unplayable. Particularly since the rulebook gives us a handy mechanism for resolving rules disputes that doesn't involve getting medieval on each other's parts.



Meanwhile, this has all gone rather off the original topic (which is a heavily discussed issue anyway) so I think we're done here. As an aside, please don't make posts on the forum addressed to specific posters in the title. If you're after input from someone specific, just send them a PM.