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.

So you know Space Wolves can get 4 HQs. Since i was thinking of a list with 4 RPs i was wondering if i can take 4 different combinations of powers on each one however still keeping one of their powers common.

I direct you to the following rule taken word for word:

"To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination"

Now you do realize the whole discussion revolves around the "or" and the "combination"

Sorry if it has been answered before, perhaps i am dumb that way.... Heres hoping to a quick reply!

Covered in the Space Wolf FAQ. It's only duplicate combinations that are not allowed... so everyone having just the one power in common is fine.

Thats weird i just read the FAQ 2 minutes ago....did they get more than one FAQ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks for the reply btw i just remembered to ask something, can models inside vehicles stilll cast powers?

it depends, a rhino has firing points so you can use a PSA like living lightning. you can also use the 5+ cover save here

although in a landraider you cannot use living lightning, but you can still use the 5+ cover one

Do vehicles get the cover? Read in the FAQ they changed squads to units but i wonder if a vehicle is a "unit"...

yes via the faq vehicles will get the 5+

Forteller wrote:Do vehicles get the cover? Read in the FAQ they changed squads to units but i wonder if a vehicle is a "unit"...

As per the 'Units' rules at the front of the rulebook, yes, vehicle units are units.

However vehicles dont get to make saves against pen/glancing hits unless "obscured", as per the rule on page 67, meaning the cover save should be fairly useless.

Most people dont play by the rules in this case however, and simply add (unconscious) houserules to let them use it.

Wow nos! Are you sure about this? Firstly it should be on page 52 not 67 but I cannot find any wording of it as you say, so surely the rule for the power take precedence?

Page 67 deals with cover saves for vehicles, but this is from memory.

Essentially ALL saves are initially only allowed against Wounds. If you havea look at page 21(? again, from memory) the first couple of paragraphs tells you this - so the default permission you have is to use cover saves (well, any save) against Wounds and Wounds only

You then get told that, IF a vehicle is obscured you may then take saves against penetrating / glancing hits in the same way as a model would against wounds.

The trouble is these powers do NOT make the vehicle obscured, they simply give it a cover save. This means you fall back to the default permission, which is that you can use that cover save, but only against wounds. Less than useful for vehicles!

AS I said, noone I know ever actually plays it that way - but strictly that is the "base" rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 67 deals with cover saves for vehicles, but this is from memory.

Essentially ALL saves are initially only allowed against Wounds. If you havea look at page 21(? again, from memory) the first couple of paragraphs tells you this - so the default permission you have is to use cover saves (well, any save) against Wounds and Wounds only

You then get told that, IF a vehicle is obscured you may then take saves against penetrating / glancing hits in the same way as a model would against wounds.

The trouble is these powers do NOT make the vehicle obscured, they simply give it a cover save. This means you fall back to the default permission, which is that you can use that cover save, but only against wounds. Less than useful for vehicles!

AS I said, noone I know ever actually plays it that way - but strictly that is the "base" rule.

I respectfully disagree with that interpretation.

The rulebook is organized with rules in certain specific sections, but in many, many cases the rules 'silently' reference the rules from other areas, in that you have to reference the rules from the other sections of the rulebook in order to to even play the game, even though the rules don't explicitly tell you to refer to those other sections. The most classic example of this being any time a 'hit' or 'wound' is caused outside of the normal shooting or assault process...the defacto answer has to be that you reference the 'to wound' sections from the shooting phase because that's the only place the complete wounding process is covered in the rules.

So if a power says that a vehicle has a cover save, then we already have permission for that vehicle to take a cover save. The only question that then remains is what happens if the vehicle passes its cover save? And there are rules for that in the section for vehicles with cover (pg 62):

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


Now, I understand that normally the rules don't grant permission for a vehicle to take a cover save unless it is obscured, but in the case of a special ability, the permission is already granted! The rules clearly state that the unit (vehicle) can take a cover save, so it can.

So we don't need to reference the first part of the rule that talks about when the vehicle is allowed to take a cover save, because that is replaced by the permission of the special ability...we just need to reference the 2nd part that explains what to do when the save is passed.


So by the RAW, a vehicle does get a cover save from any ability that grants a cover save to all units within range, and if passed 'the hit is discared and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table.'

1) It states the vehicle *has* a cover save, not that the vehicle may *use* the save. The rule in question, to keep it simple, does NOT say the vehicle may USE the cover save, or HOW it may use it, just that is HAS it.

2) The only place, in the BRB, that you are told *how* to use a cover save on a vehicle requires you to be obscured for you to do so. If you are not obscured, you have no permission to "ignore the hit" as you are not told you can substitute "penetrating or glancing hit" for "wound" in the Saves section of the rulebook.

So no, RAW you CANNOT take a cover save, or invulnerable or potentially an armour save unless you are "obscured" *first*, as this is the only time yo uare granted permission to substitute P/G Hits for Wounds in the Saving Throws section of the rulebook.

Edit:

To make it clearer I will show the part I believe you have made an incorrect leap of logic:

Yakface, edited by me wrote:
So if a power says that a vehicle has a cover save, then we already have permission for that vehicle to take a cover save against wounds, as that is how Saving Throws are defined as working in the rulebook

The first part which you dismiss as not needed is still necessary, as it is the only place in the rulebook while allows you to substitute a single P/G hit for a single wound when determining how to perform cover saves on vehicles. You know this is needed as otherwise - why are you making a save per "hit" (to shorten it further)? Why arent you making 2 saves per penetrating hit, and only 1 for glancing? Why dont you only make 1 save against all of them? The answer is in the first sentence you have stated is uneccesary: it is a 1-1 swap, ignoring the "type" of hit, IF you are obscured in the first place.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) It states the vehicle *has* a cover save, not that the vehicle may *use* the save. The rule in question, to keep it simple, does NOT say the vehicle may USE the cover save, or HOW it may use it, just that is HAS it.

2) The only place, in the BRB, that you are told *how* to use a cover save on a vehicle requires you to be obscured for you to do so. If you are not obscured, you have no permission to "ignore the hit" as you are not told you can substitute "penetrating or glancing hit" for "wound" in the Saves section of the rulebook.

So no, RAW you CANNOT take a cover save, or invulnerable or potentially an armour save unless you are "obscured" *first*, as this is the only time yo uare granted permission to substitute P/G Hits for Wounds in the Saving Throws section of the rulebook.

Edit:

To make it clearer I will show the part I believe you have made an incorrect leap of logic:

Yakface, edited by me wrote:
So if a power says that a vehicle has a cover save, then we already have permission for that vehicle to take a cover save against wounds, as that is how Saving Throws are defined as working in the rulebook

The first part which you dismiss as not needed is still necessary, as it is the only place in the rulebook while allows you to substitute a single P/G hit for a single wound when determining how to perform cover saves on vehicles. You know this is needed as otherwise - why are you making a save per "hit" (to shorten it further)? Why arent you making 2 saves per penetrating hit, and only 1 for glancing? Why dont you only make 1 save against all of them? The answer is in the first sentence you have stated is uneccesary: it is a 1-1 swap, ignoring the "type" of hit, IF you are obscured in the first place.

You are actually correct that more of the rule for vehicles taking cover saves needs to be reference on page 62 then what I said in my post, but you are absolutely incorrect when you suggest that because normally a vehicle needs to be obscured to have permission to take a cover save that this is actually a restriction against unobscured vehicles ever getting to take a cover save.

That is not a logically sound argument. The rules do *not* say that vehicles that are not obscured cannot take cover saves...that's just the only way the basic rules give permission to do so.

That means ANY rule which gives the vehicle permission to take a cover save works perfectly fine because you effectively replace whatever rule is giving the vehicle cover save with the normal permission required (to be obscured).


This is absolutely no different than a thousand other places in the rules that are written using the 'standard' order of operations which you then have to replace the 'permission' with whatever special circumstance requires it.

For example the 'to wound' rules specify that you use the "weapon's Strength characteristic" to calculate the 'to wound' roll needed. Now obviously if you have some sort of special circumstance (like an exploding vehicle) you don't have a 'weapon', but you do have a Strength so you have to replace the normal permission of a "weapon's" strength with the Strength of the hits generated by the explosion rules. You don't try to say that the explosion doesn't get to cause any wounds because it isn't 'a weapon'.

The same is true in the case of Storm Caller (and the similar Blood Angel power) which grant units within range a cover save. That gives units within that range the permission to take a cover save and therefore we go into the rules for vehicles and cover and we apply the rules for vehicles taking cover save but replacing the normal permissions required to GET a cover save with those in the 'Storm Caller' special rule.

Except the part you quote still doesnt show you HOW to use the cover save for vehicles - the only place it shows you HOW to use the cover saves starts "If Obscured...."

If you are not obscured how are you reading the rest of the sentence? You have not fulfilled the requiremetn of "being obscured" (if obscured...) and so cannot find out the result of "being obscured", which is being able to itry to gnore hits in the same way troops try to ignore wounds.

Having a cover save against wounds does not give you permission to use that cover save against hits. And the only place where you are shown how to use a cover save against hits DOES place a requirement on being obscured - by starting "If obscured"

Head..........hurts...........

Nos is 100% in that none of the saving rules mention that they can be used against hits.
"Roll a D6 for each wound" - for +'s
"they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound" - for ++'s"

But there's no instructions for coversaves... the closest we have is "was wounded by an AP3 weapon his power armour would be of no use, as the shot’s AP is equal to or lower than his armour save. The force field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither...." which is some implied instructions that cover saves could be taken against wounds. It's indispuitable that 'saving throws' are used against wounds, but we are never told how save work for hits in general (although recent errata and continued printings suggest invul can be taken whenever one feels like it) the only time we're told how to take a save against a hit, is on page 62 "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it..."
But I feel the most important part is "If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex." if the ability doesn't confer 'obscured' it's not taking cover save =P

Then to be consistent, you should follow up on Yakface's observation that only hits from attacks have permission to use the to wound table. The hits generated by vehicle explosions do nothing because page 17 specifies "the weapon's Strength characteristic". What weapon is delivering the hits for the vehicle explosion?

I do not see an issue with calling either the explosion the flaming debris or the vehicle the 'weapon' - I personally like the debris as they are contained in the scentence "Flaming debris is scattered D6" from the vehicle, and models in range suffer a Strength 3, AP– hit." to wound says "To decide if a hit causes a telling wound, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic" As we niftily have a S value, call what one will the weapon, "Flaming debris" have a St3 of 3 a range of D6 and an Ap of '-' True they do not have a typical weapon profile, but they have all that past of one and instructions to fire it!

ChrisCP wrote:I do not see an issue with calling either the explosion the flaming debris or the vehicle the 'weapon' - I personally like the debris as they are contained in the scentence "Flaming debris is scattered D6" from the vehicle, and models in range suffer a Strength 3, AP– hit." to wound says "To decide if a hit causes a telling wound, compare the weapon’s Strength characteristic" As we niftily have a S value, call what one will the weapon, "Flaming debris" have a St3 of 3 a range of D6 and an Ap of '-' True they do not have a typical weapon profile, but they have all that past of one and instructions to fire it!

And Storm Caller gives all units within 6" a 5+ cover save!

To be honest, the explosion vs. wounds example is just one of many that can be found in the game. The rulebook is written so that rules are found in the places they are most commonly associated with, but there are plenty of situations where the rules don't even explicitly tell you to use the rules from said section, you just have to in order to make the game function.


Again, this point keeps getting glossed over: The rules for vehicles and cover do not say that *only* obscured vehicles can take cover saves. If such a restriction was in place then no special circumstance could allow a vehicle to take a cover save without explicitly overriding the restriction.

But there is NO SUCH RESTRICTION. The only thing the rules for vehicles and cover have is the normal permission plus reaction. Which is essentially an 'If' 'Then' statement that tells you when you get to use the rule and what the rule actually does.

This is not a matter of literally swapping out the wording from the sentence and replacing it with the wording of 'Storm Caller' but rather a matter of replacing the permission required to take a cover save.

The Storm Caller power gives the permission for all units within range to take a cover save, so we know that the vehicle gets to take a cover save UNLESS you can find some restriction that specifically disallows the vehicle from doing so. There is NO SUCH RESTRICTION...only the usual permission, which isn't applicable in this situation (since permission is granted via a special rule).

Except, as pointed out, it only gives them permission to take saves against Wounds.

The only way to find out how to take saves against Hits is by being obscured - it is a restriction as it starts "if obscured...."

If you are not obscured you cannot continue past this point, as you have no permission to do so. As you cannot continue past this point you have no way to determine *how* you are to take these cover saves.

I am not glossing over your point; you are instead removing a restriction (if obscured...) and stating it does not apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except, as pointed out, it only gives them permission to take saves against Wounds.

The only way to find out how to take saves against Hits is by being obscured - it is a restriction as it starts "if obscured...."

If you are not obscured you cannot continue past this point, as you have no permission to do so. As you cannot continue past this point you have no way to determine *how* you are to take these cover saves.

I am not glossing over your point; you are instead removing a restriction (if obscured...) and stating it does not apply.

'If obscured' is not a restriction, it is a permission. If it were a restriction it would say something like 'if a vehicle is not obscured then it cannot utilize a cover save'.

The 'if obscured' permission is effectively replaced by 'if within range of Storm Caller' in this case, because THAT is the permission required for this special rule.

Yet that isnt how I read it.

Agree to disagree? I see a requirement you cannot fulfill, you dont.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet that isnt how I read it.

Agree to disagree? I see a requirement you cannot fulfill, you dont.

Yep, agree to disagree!

I'm new but I agree with Yakface. I think they intend for the game to be as realistic as possible which by using Storm Caller it creates a haze/fog/heavy rain in turn obscuring visibility. So any unit (tanks are units) get the 5+ save if a hit is scored.

If during a game you disagree on the logic of it roll off and see if they get the advantage of the ability or not.

Agree with Yakface.

His interpretation makes a great deal more sense in the larger context of the 40k rules.

Agree with Yakface, I don't believe the rules preclude the use of a cover save.

Agreed with Yakface on this one, Even if the opponent disagreed I'd argue than take the rulebooks idea of if arguing take a 5+ cover save ... lolz

Someone once posted that the most common rule problems came because someone acted like the word "always" or "only" was part of the rule, when it was not actually in the rule.


Here is says "If obscured", it does not say "Only if obscured".


edt:
Holy crap! The quote I was thinking about I just saw on the necro'd thread about "Disembarking, Fleet, Assaulting"

Flavius Infernus:
Incidentally, I noticed for the last few years that most of the arguments that go on for more than a couple of pages on YMDC are situations where somebody has assumed an "all" or "always" or "only" condition where it wasn't stated. Either that or somebody read "instead of" or "in lieu of" as meaning you had to be able to do it in the first place.

Flavius is a really smart guy. And he's actually nice about it, unlike some.

In regards to the actual subject of the thread, in digging through the book to give reply to the MikhailLenin thread earlier, I noticed that the regular unit cover rules on pages 21-23 also don't give you explicit permission to use a cover save granted by wargear or psychic powers. They only explain how you get cover saves from terrain and other units, making no mention of stuff like Storm Caller.

The rules on page 62 for vehicles list "exceptions to the normal rules for cover", ie: the ones on page 21-23. But neither section talks about cover saves for unit special rules (like Ork Warbikes) or psychic powers, or anything.

If someone's going to argue that vehicles can ONLY get cover saves from being obscured, logically they have to also believe that non-vehicle units can ONLY get cover saves from terrain and other units. And that Kustom Force Fields, Warbiker clouds, Conceal, Shield of Sanguinius, and Storm Caller all do nothing.

Does it help matters that page 71 defines obscured as a 4+ cover save?