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.

greetings all,

a quick question about the stormraven in combination with a librarian casting the shrouding.

Should i turboboost the stormraven on the table it gets a 4+ cover save. If i cast the shrouding in the oppononts phase, does it then still have a 4+ cover save or does it get a 3+ cover save.

The reason i ask this is because the way 'the shrouding' is worded.
The spell says: the effected unit gains stealth (+1 on the cover save) but then it goes on saying that if the unit is not in cover it gets a 6+ cover save in stead.

Going flat out and gaining a cover save is offcourse not the same thing as actually being in cover. So the opinions are somewhat divided.
I would say it only gets a 4+ cover save.
Any and all help/answers appreciated.

Krilau

it gets a 3+ as it has a 4+already

you're kinda missing the point of discussion.

Stealth gives +1 to the existing cover save, i know this. however, the description of 'the shrouding' says: "if the target is not in cover it gets a 6+ cover save instead"!

Is having a cover save from turbo boosting the same as being in cover ... :-s and we all know how impossible it is to get a stormraven in actual cover.

Thank you for reading.

Krilau

First of all, you go "Flat Out" with a vehicle, you turboboost bikes

In this case it gains stealth, and gets a 3+ cover save.

Sorry about the improper use of terms. Flat out is idd what i meant.

Could you please explain a bit further why you think it would get the +1 cover save. Because, the description of "the shrouding" still says, if not in cover it gains a 6+ cover instead.
I believe going flat out is not the same as actually being in cover.

I would love a healthy discussion about this. Saying it gets +1 cover save and not saying why isn't really helping me out, cause i need to convince my TO to allow it. He's against it... :-s

No Worries - it can just confuse people, especially as the value of the cover save is different!

You are "in cover" if you have a cover save. Flat out generates a cover save, meaning you are in coover and gain "stealth"

Could you please explain a bit further why you think it would get the +1 cover save

Because shrouding has two separate effects. A unit will gain the shrouding special rule. That means if it already has a cover save that save is increased by 1. since moving flat-out gives a cover save, the storm raven gains the +1.

Normally a unit with stealth does not, in fact, gain a 6+ save for being in the open.

Shrouding has the additional effect of giving a 6+ cover save in the open (that is not further modified by the stealth rule).

The thing to remember is that cover and cover saves are not interchangeable terms.

Thx for the responses so far.

It's proving to be difficult to persuade the TO because the description of 'the shrouding' uses the word 'instead' when it speaks of the 6+ cover save.

"...if the unit is not in cover it benefits from a 6+ cover save instead[u]..."

Reasoning the TO uses is that the word 'instead' removes the stealth effect, replacing it if you will by the 6+ cover save.

I have till the 6th november to persuade him ...

p22 - by definition you are "in cover" if you have a cover save.

Okay, breaking it down time. First show or have your TO look at pg. 62 of the BRB,

BRB wrote:If a special rule or 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.

So per this page we get that even vehicles in the open with a special rule can be obscured and get a 4+ cover save. Next we go to pg. 71 of the BRB,

BRB wrote:A skimmer this is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured (cover save of 4+) when fired at.

So with these two references, we have that skimmers with their own special rule allow them to count as obscured and per the general firing at vehicle rules we have that being obscured can happen even in the open if with a special rule as is the case with skimmers moving flat out. Next we go to the C:GK,

C:GK wrote:If the Psychic test is successful, the Librarian, and any friendly unit within 6' of him, have the Stealth special rule.

Finally we turn back to the BRB for the Stealth USR on pg. 76,

BRB wrote:All of the unit's cover saves are improved by +1.

All emphasis's are mine. By strict RAW, I would say that the Stormraven is not even in cover, but certainly have a cover save from moving flat out per the skimmer special rules even if in the open, and because of the rest of the wording on The Shrouding, would also gain a 6+ cover save, although it would generally have to make use of the 3+ cover save over the 6+.

Obscured == in cover

nosferatu1001 wrote:Obscured == in cover

Not that I'm disagreeing with you Nos, but I don't recall seeing that. Have a page number handy?

"in cover" is saying you are covered, which has the same meaning as obscured in this context

page numbers arent needed when common English usage tells you this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"in cover" is saying you are covered, which has the same meaning as obscured in this context

page numbers arent needed when common English usage tells you this.

I agree with "in cover" having the same meaning as being obscured in this context, but I think it is a bit far to say that "obscured == in cover". A vehicle can certainly be obscured while not in any actual cover as pointed out early. While the two may mean the same thing in that context for most purposes, I do not think they do for all purposes. Being in cover can lead to being obscured, but being obscured doesn't necessarily mean being in cover. A Chimera in the open pops smoke. It is obscured and will get the 4+ cover save per pg. 62 of the BRB, but no where does it actually state that I saw that it is in cover. Although for most intents and purposes the two mean the same thing, there are a few cases where they don't. Such as the second half of The Shrouding. Until GW writes a rule-set with tighter definitions, or if I somehow missed it, obscured != in cover yet can have the same result most of the time.

Edit: To add on, there can be times where a vehicle is in cover, yet does not count as obscured if > 50% of the vehicle is visible to the firer. Although in that case if suppose it would be more correct to say the vehicle is in terrain as opposed to in cover. Hmmm.

p62 says:

"...needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models....claim to be in cover. If this is the case the vehicle is said to be obscured"

In cover == obscured, by definition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:p62 says:

"...needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models....claim to be in cover. If this is the case the vehicle is said to be obscured"

In cover == obscured, by definition.

That is one instance of being obscured, by cover. I do not read those sentences as cover == obscured because of the text box covering smoke launchers, which never mentions being in cover, just obscured and cover saves. For vehicles, still agree that the meaning of in cover and the meaning of obscured are the same, but the actual terms are not equal, as I can have a vehicle that is in the open, yet is also obscured as demonstrated in my early quote and further on down on page 62. I would further argue that a vehicle can not simultaneously be in the open and in cover, yet can simultaneously being in the open and obscured. Again, for almost all intents and purposes this is the same as being in cover, for vehicles, yet is not actually in cover. Otherwise I feel that GW would not have needed to specify that vehicles in the open can still be obscured if obscured always meant being in cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a side note, I am actually enjoying this discussion enough that it is delaying me packing my models into my car and going to play 40k. It is also amusing to me that Nos and I agree with each other on the result of this thread but not on the whole obscured/in cover thing which is entirely moot for this topic.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:I would further argue that a vehicle can not simultaneously be in the open and in cover, yet can simultaneously being in the open and obscured. Again, for almost all intents and purposes this is the same as being in cover, for vehicles, yet is not actually in cover. Otherwise I feel that GW would not have needed to specify that vehicles in the open can still be obscured if obscured always meant being in cover.

That is the heart of the matter, and my argumentation though, and it is not moot for this topic, as it applies directly to the way Shrouding is worded.

if the unit in question (stormraven moving flat out) is obscured, but not in cover, it would mean it doesn't get a 3+ save due to stealth, but the 6+ cover save instead, as it is not in cover.

Yet it does get the 3+, as I've shown

Indeed, it does get a 3+ cover as both Nos and I have shown.

Moving flat out 'counts as' being in cover to obtain 'obscured' status.

Nos is correct on this one.