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.

kartofelkopf wrote:Moderator Nosferatu to the rescue...

v
Reminding people of forum rules is a good thing, dont you think?

kartofelkopf wrote:And, what more substantiation do you want? Adepticon uses INAT, the 'ard Boyz used it last year, Bolter Beach is using a modified INAT, many local stores use it, etc...

Erm, some numbers? You need to quantify your claims, otherwise they are meaningless. So far you have numbers of tournaments.

It is up to YOU to prove your claim first, then invite people to find fault.

kartofelkopf wrote:My only claim is that it is the most widely used. The only way for you to refute that claim is to show a more widely used FAQ (or to show that no FAQs are used anywhere-- a clearly false premise).

Good luck.

The GW FAQ is more widely used, at a guess. I have no numbers to back this up but then neither, clearly, do you.

(By the way you mistake the requirements - you are required to substantiate your claim first, then invite refutation. You cant make an unsubstantiated, unquantified claim and then ask for someone to defeat it)

hey, OP, since we've determined that pure RAW without any common sense says no usable save and this has now turned into a how would you play it thread... a poll would be nice to see how dakka in general plays it.

Or you could just talk it over with people at your FLGS, come to a consensus and then add it to the house rules. Probably easier and more relevant than what's happening here...

Natfka wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Page 62 is the ONLY PLACE IN THE ENTIRE RULEBOOK THAT LETS YOU ********USE********* A COVER SAVE AGAINST HITS

.

This isnt true. fast skimmers are not handled on page 62.

... That's because all Fast Skimmers say is that the vehicle counts as Obscured.

What does Obscured do? Why, it's covered on page 62!

Natfka wrote:This isnt true. fast skimmers are not handled on page 62.

Fast Skimmers become Obscured. Which page is it that tells you what "obscured" does? Page 62!

Gwar! wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:My only claim is that it is the most widely used. The only way for you to refute that claim is to show a more widely used FAQ (or to show that no FAQs are used anywhere-- a clearly false premise).

Good luck.

The GW FAQs are used more than the INAT.

Huzzah for more semantics.

Let us know when you have something substantive and accurate to add to this discussion-- so far, you're not doing too well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is up to YOU to prove your claim first, then invite people to find fault.

Okay:

p1 The INAT is used at the largest 40k event in the world, and is used at many other events besides (BolterBeach, etc_)
p2 There is no other comprehensive FAQ (note comprehensive here is meant to remove the GW FAQs from consideration) widely used in 40k tournament play

c The INAT is the most widely used comprehensive FAQ for 40k tournament play


Better? Now, you can refute the conclusion by citing a more widely used FAQ, you can disprove a premise (by either showing that the INAT is not used at the largest 40k event or that there IS another comprehensive FAQ being used at tourneys).
-------------
All of this is certainly besides the point, though. Generally, the most-widely played interpretation is that the saves had by a vehicle may also be used by said vehicle.

I'd invite (for the third time) any of the "RAW" literalists to show a single tournament document that disallows said saves.

kartofelkopf wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:My only claim is that it is the most widely used. The only way for you to refute that claim is to show a more widely used FAQ (or to show that no FAQs are used anywhere-- a clearly false premise).

Good luck.

The GW FAQs are used more than the INAT.

Huzzah for more semantics.

Let us know when you have something substantive and accurate to add to this discussion-- so far, you're not doing too well.

How is this not accurate? You asked for an FAQ that was more widely used than the INAT, and I gave you one...

Accurate, yes, substantive, no.

"You" wouldn't believe the number of MOD ALERTS this thread has generated...

Or maybe, "you" would?

STOP personal attacks - thinly veiled or otherwise.

STOP pointless semantics argument that go around and around.

STOP the circular arguments that only lead to more personal attacks.

Fair warning to ALL has now been given.

GW needs to update their FAQ to cover this issue (see what I did there ).

Personally, I think it's pretty clear, but a lot of people seem really set in their ways.

Maybe they will issue one in 2 years........................

Currently Shield and Storm qualify ANY unit to a COVER save so indeed any vehicle is a unit and gets it.

So now any vehicle that has wounds can apply the cover save it qualifies for.

Have any of you met a vehicle that has wounds????

Ork KFF specifically states that vehicles are treated as obscured. So they get the 4+ save from a hit.

Could make sense but this is not how BA or SW codex states/adds to their effects.

And to reppeat the person above me, Shield and Storm are a couple of the VERY FEW abilities that do not include the line about VEHICLES COUNT AS OBSCURED, see Smoke and Kff for the easiest referances while I'm enjoying Hobart instead of Perth for a change.

Now apparently some people like to use the tools of S&S, which omits the line of - vehicles count as obscured - so could you please stop trying to change how your rule works? It's like the (old old) argument that vehicles old recive a 5+ cover save from KFF no they get an (awsome) 4+ ( also the default save because they are considered obscured, why?, the rule specifically says so.

Does your storm say the vehicle is obscured? No. Why is that? Because it was not made to grant vehicles the benifit of cover. So please don't try to bend it every which way.

Sorry for the rehtoric.

Here is how I see it again, becuase no one has addressed it.

Infantry. to get a cover save you must be in cover 50% This confers a cover save, intervening models act as if behind terrain. If these things happen you get a cover save. Says so in the rule book. You have blank, you get a cover save.

Vehicles, you get your vehicle obscured, you get a cover save. Get it?

The end result is a cover save. That is not a question, but in the rule book. Nothing says you must be in cover or behind it (for infantry), and nothing says you must be obscured (for vehicles).

To me, the arguement that ive heard here would also apply to infantry as well. No save with this power. Meaning if you are not in cover or behind models, you cannot recieve a cover save. If that was being claimed, I would beleive the same for vehicles and obscurement, but it doesnt, so the arguement doesnt work.

Obscurement tells you how you get the save. I agree with that rule. However, a codex comes along and tells you something different. That you get the end result.... A cover save.... without being in cover/obscured for a cover save. It says you have your unit within 6" of the power, that is how you get it.

Infantry need area terrain/intervening models 50% to get a cover save. They dont need this with this power. The same is for obscurement. You dont need it for this power. And no where does it say you "Must" be obscured. It only says "if you are obscured"

I think the reasoning is because the rule book says "if a special rule...confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ save..." Nothing about that implies that vehicles get a cover save for anything other than being obscured, regardless of the source.

That's clearly different that saying "a vehicle gets a cover save," and is why the Ork KFF specifies that it grants obscurement to a vehicle, whereas the other examples in this thread contain no such wording.

As to your argument re: obscured & getting the end result, that's not true because it doesn't tell you that the vehicle gets "obscured" as a status, so it doesn't get the result of that status which is the cover save...

Again people have addressed that already - A cover save is something one uses for the prevention of suffering wounds.

I think the lines that would resolve your confusion are on page 21
"When are models in Cover?
When any part of the target model’s body is obscured from the point of view of the
shooter, the target is in cover."
And where we are told
"Vehicles & Cover – Obscured Targets
Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry"
on page 62 coupled with
"If the target is obscured & 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"
Along with the big box about "Smoke Launchers"on the same page.

Now they aren't exact quotes - I don't have my rule book on me - but if you looked them up in yours to re-read them I'm sure you'd become a little more heistant in your view. Or please explain how you argue agisnt the rule books text in relation to these points. ^_^

The thing that I find humorous about your entire he said, she said arguement, is that it is a completely moot point even if you do decide to agree. Until GW comes out with a FAQ it is up to the tourney organizers to decide, or rolling off everytime it comes up against a friend.

Snickerdoodle wrote:The thing that I find humorous about your entire he said, she said arguement, is that it is a completely moot point even if you do decide to agree. Until GW comes out with a FAQ it is up to the tourney organizers to decide, or rolling off everytime it comes up against a friend.

Or, you know, playing by the RaW? Yes, I know it's unthinkable, but it's an option.

Natfka wrote:Here is how I see it again, becuase no one has addressed it.

Infantry. to get a cover save you must be in cover 50% This confers a cover save, intervening models act as if behind terrain. If these things happen you get a cover save. Says so in the rule book. You have blank, you get a cover save.

Vehicles, you get your vehicle obscured, you get a cover save. Get it?

The end result is a cover save. That is not a question, but in the rule book. Nothing says you must be in cover or behind it (for infantry), and nothing says you must be obscured (for vehicles).

To me, the arguement that ive heard here would also apply to infantry as well. No save with this power. Meaning if you are not in cover or behind models, you cannot recieve a cover save. If that was being claimed, I would beleive the same for vehicles and obscurement, but it doesnt, so the arguement doesnt work.

Obscurement tells you how you get the save. I agree with that rule. However, a codex comes along and tells you something different. That you get the end result.... A cover save.... without being in cover/obscured for a cover save. It says you have your unit within 6" of the power, that is how you get it.

Infantry need area terrain/intervening models 50% to get a cover save. They dont need this with this power. The same is for obscurement. You dont need it for this power. And no where does it say you "Must" be obscured. It only says "if you are obscured"

This argument is only bringing up a point I had thought laid decently to rest; to wit, nobody is saying the vehicles don't GET a cover save, only that they can't USE it. Cover saves are used against WOUNDS; the only cover saves that can be used against HITS are those that are granted to a vehicle by the process of being obscured.

To me, the arguement that ive heard here would also apply to infantry as well.

Have you read the argument against at all? As people have repeatedly pointed out both the vehicles and the infantry gain the cover save and both can use it against wounds. How would that possibly stop the infantry from getting the cover save?

Nafka - people HAVE addressed your point, *repeatedly*

NOONE disputes that vehicles are given a cover save.

NOONE

The argument is that this cover save ONLY saves agaisnt wounds unless you have permission to save against hits.

Page 62 is what gives you permission to save against hits, and only then if you are obscured (the "if obscured", clause)

So yes, people HAVE addressed your point, and it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

So many threads like this have poped up and so many times the same people say its so clearly stated in the brb. Yet, if it were so clearly stated then why are so many threads coming up?

The notion that only Cover saves works against only wounds is false.

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

Maybe my reading comprehension is off because its 5 am but I think the rules just quoted says a cover save, but aren't cover saves only for wounds?. The vechicle rules go into great length to make sure that in normal circumstances a vehicles is much harder then infantry to gain a cover save, thus normally requires 50% obscurement before it can even say it has a cover save. This prevents a single model standing in front of the vehicle and claiming a cover save etc.

Any refrence to the Ork KFF or quotes of rules from the Tau are moot as they were written before 5th edition to work with 4th edition. Thus they bear no weight to this discussion to use as evidence to support a persons view.

As most people know the codex in many cases will always overule brb, especially if it written clearly.

The power is used at the start of the enemy Shooting phase. The Librarian and any unit within 6" recieve a 5+ cover save until the end of the phase

If the intent was to not allow vehicles to gain a cover save, they would of simply chose a better word then such a defining one such as ANY UNIT. Any unit recieves a cover save, not gains a cover save but recieves it. This makes it pretty clear on what it does nor indicates that one needs to go back to the BRB to see if a vehicle qualifies for a cover save. As it states I never have a cover save when its at time to check but flat out I recieve it on ANY unit.

Boris - noone is saying cover saves are "only" for wounds, however they only work for wounds *by default*, as this is what is covered on page 21.

What you missed from your bolding is the first part: IF THE TARGET IS OBSCURED.

Are you obscured? No? Then stop there - you CANNOT take a save against the hit, as you do not meet the condition.

Natfka wrote:Here is how I see it again, becuase no one has addressed it.

Infantry. to get a cover save you must be in cover 50% This confers a cover save, intervening models act as if behind terrain. If these things happen you get a cover save. Says so in the rule book. You have blank, you get a cover save.

Vehicles, you get your vehicle obscured, you get a cover save. Get it?

The end result is a cover save. That is not a question, but in the rule book. Nothing says you must be in cover or behind it (for infantry), and nothing says you must be obscured (for vehicles).

Lemme try a different tack than the previous folks in answering you. Same answer, worded differently.

1. You have a vehicle within 6" of Shield of Sanguinus. That vehicle benefits from a 5+ cover save.

2. I fire at your vehicle with a lascannon.

3. I get a penetrating hit.

4. You are eligible to take a 5+ cover save against any wound I cause.

5. A penetrating hit is not a wound. In fact, your vehicle has no wounds, so is not eligible to use the cover save that it has.

6. Your vehicle suffers the effects of the penetrating hit.

That's the order of events. The only way that a special rule can grant a usable cover save to vehicles (IE, a cover save against rolls to hit instead of against rolls to wound) is if it grants the vehicle "obscured" status. There are multiple special rules that do so - it just so happens that yours is not one of them.

Take the Kustom Force Field. Its special rule says that all units within 6" gain a 5+ cover save. Then it says...to paraphrase, "In addition, all vehicles within 6" count as obscured." That's a very special and important sentence. That's the reason ork vehicles have a usable cover save against hits. Without it, SoS doesn't confer anything of use to your vehicles, except for one thing: If your vehicle is within 6" of your SoS and the vehicle explodes, the unit inside has a 5+ cover save against subsequent wounds.

So, as usual this topic goes round and round in circles.

To summarise:
Some players think that cover saves are only taken against wounds, except where the rules specifically state otherwise... in which case a vehicle needs to be obscured in order to take a cover save against a hit. This means that vehicle will on occasion wind up being awarded a cover save that they can not use. This poit of view is backed up by the fact that the rules for obscured vehicles are the only place that the rules specifically talk about taking saves against something other than wounds.

Some players think that cover saves are taken against any damage, in which case vehicles can take any cover save they are given, regardless of whether or not it confers an obscured status. This point of view is backed up by the fact that within the Saving Throws section of the rules, only the Armour Save section specifically refers to saving throws being taken against wounds. The other sections (the intro to saving throws, Invulnerable saves and Cover saves) all mention wounds, but don't refer to the saves being taken specifically against them, and the intro refers to saves being taken against damage.

Until GW FAQ it, people will continue to hold to one or the other. If in doubt, discuss it with your opponent.


As a side point, the INAT faq (or any other home-brew FAQ) is only relevant if you are playing in an event that is using it, or have agreed to its use in your own game. Bringing up the ruling made in such a document in a rules discussion is therefore not going to actually accomplish anything, as anyone who is not using that document is going to question the validity of the ruling. Hence the lack of its inclusion in the list of acceptable rules sources in the Tenets of YMDC.