GW did a good thing when they made an errata (not an FAQ!) to change the wording of a certain power (Storm Caller?) to say that it provides a cover save to units rather than squads. I commend them on paying attention to a detail that some many consider minor, and making an actual correction of it. However, it still leaves on question open to some debate.

We all know that vehicles are units. So on first glance it would seem that vehicles would also gain this bonus. However, many have argued that in order for a vehicle to benefit from a cover save, they must be specifically granted obscured status, as the normal rules for cover saves only apply to wounds, not to penetrating and glancing hits.

I think that the simpler reading is just that any unit, regardless of unit type, within range will gain a cover save, and be able to use that cover save. I mention this simplicity because Occam's Razor tells us that the simple option is more often the correct option.

I think the more correct reading is that without granting obscured status a vehicle cannot benefit, even if it has a cover save.

What do you think?

As much as it can be considered a "Dick Move", I have to agree with the More correct reading. The Cover rules for vehicles state IF IT IS OBSCURED it gets to take the appropriate save (5+/4+/3+) and that if it OBSCURED, even in the open, it is a 4+.

Vehicles must have ~%50 of their bulk obscured by some other feature on the board (or have gained the 'obscured' effect from war gear) to gain a cover save. The main rule book is very explicit about this.

We have played that vehicles need to be obscured.

Vehicles must have ~%50 of their bulk obscured by some other feature on the board (or have gained the 'obscured' effect from war gear) to gain a cover save.

That is a common mis-reading of the rules.

BGB pg 62 wrote:At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured (or ‘hull down’).

Being in cover and being able to take a cover save are not the same thing. Example being a squadron of vehicles, as long as half the squadron can claim to be in cover, the whole unit may take the cover save --- even though they themselves are not in cover (or obscured, etc).

I think winterman has it dead on. Cover save != in cover (obscured). A vehicle must be obscured to utilize a cover save- unless granted from another source. By the same argument infantry cannot use it because they are not in cover and the rules say the unit must be in cover to gain a cover save.

The rulebook defines one general way vehicles may gain a cover save, not the sole, exclusive way.

I'm confused. You mean the special rule that overrides the main rulebook and grants a vehicle a cover save doesn't work?

Are you going to tell me that Bjorn doesn't get an invulnerable save because it invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds according to the BRB?



/Agree with winterman and jmurph

jmurph wrote:I think winterman has it dead on. Cover save != in cover (obscured). A vehicle must be obscured to utilize a cover save- unless granted from another source.

The problem (as was pointed out in the original post) is that normally cover saves only allow you to save against wounds.

Being obscured allows vehicles to take a cover save against glancing or penetrating hits. Nothing allows them to take cover saves against these hits without being obscured.

So yes, technically anything that grants units a cover save without making vehicles obscured will grant vehicles a cover save... but that cover save is only against wounds, and so is useless to vehicles.


And yes, to stick to the topic, that's pretty much how I play it.

Timmah wrote:Are you going to tell me that Bjorn doesn't get an invulnerable save because it invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds according to the BRB?

Bjorn doesn't get an invulnerable save because invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds according to the BRB. If you don't like it, bully for you. That is what the rules say.

Doesn't the codex say that he gets the save against glances and pens, the same as the vehicle cover rules?

I believe so, that or they may have FAQ'd it. I think this relates somewhat to the disruption pods debate as well: outside of the common usage of cover/smoke to obscure vehicles what is the process for determining what happens when? Or if, for that matter.

Yeah I should have been more clear, I was not weighing in one way or another on the matter with my post -- just pointing out the fallacy in that quoted statement (it comes up often enough in other arguments regarding MCs and squadrons I was compelled to post). I agree with insaniak, although I wouldn't waste gametime arguing about it on the table top.

insaniak wrote:Doesn't the codex say that he gets the save against glances and pens, the same as the vehicle cover rules?

No, it doesn't. No, they didn't faq it.

Gwar! wrote:The Cover rules for vehicles state IF IT IS OBSCURED it gets to take the appropriate save (5+/4+/3+) and that if it OBSCURED, even in the open, it is a 4+.

So given MC per the BRB must follow all the cover save rules outlined for vehicles, does that mean that Venomthope wouldn't give MC a 5+ cover save?

insaniak wrote:
Being obscured allows vehicles to take a cover save against glancing or penetrating hits. Nothing allows them to take cover saves against these hits without being obscured.

So yes, technically anything that grants units a cover save without making vehicles obscured will grant vehicles a cover save... but that cover save is only against wounds, and so is useless to vehicles.

So are we also arguing that the 3+ cover save granted from extreme angles also, technically, means nothing? It isn't obscured, after all, and apparently the rules do not tell us how to handle that cover save.

Regardless, it is a how do you play question (as you point out) and I can't imagine many people would play it other than allowing the save.

wyomingfox wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The Cover rules for vehicles state IF IT IS OBSCURED it gets to take the appropriate save (5+/4+/3+) and that if it OBSCURED, even in the open, it is a 4+.

So given MC per the BRB must follow all the cover save rules outlined for vehicles, does that mean that Venomthope wouldn't give MC a 5+ cover save?

Because normal non-obscured cover saves may be taken against wounds, a MC may still benefit from items that simply grant a cover save, even though they normally need to be obscured.

jmurph wrote:

insaniak wrote:
Being obscured allows vehicles to take a cover save against glancing or penetrating hits. Nothing allows them to take cover saves against these hits without being obscured.

So yes, technically anything that grants units a cover save without making vehicles obscured will grant vehicles a cover save... but that cover save is only against wounds, and so is useless to vehicles.

So are we also arguing that the 3+ cover save granted from extreme angles also, technically, means nothing? It isn't obscured, after all, and apparently the rules do not tell us how to handle that cover save.

Regardless, it is a how do you play question (as you point out) and I can't imagine many people would play it other than allowing the save.

According to the poll, about 60% of the people who have voted so far would play it not allowing the save.

Which only tells me that there are 15 people I wouldn't want to play with ;-)

jmurph wrote:Which only tells me that there are 15 people I wouldn't want to play with ;-)

Because they disagree with you about an ambiguous rule?

That makes me glad I don't have to play against you and I even voted for the first option...

hah! i forgot about bjorns inability to make use of his invul, i would never normally do it, but i shoulda remembered that and used it on this tool from an rtt that blatant cheated but the judge waffled and thought a land raider redeemers flamestorm cannon could somehow hit a unit on top of a bastion, i wouldve loved to have done that though ...

"Actually, im sorry. But Bjorn is unable to make use of his invul =/"

"wtf are you talking about dont be a tard"

*pulls out brb and points out invul saves -> wounds*

*chuckle at his apoplexy*

hah! i forgot about bjorns inability to make use of his invul, i would never normally do it, but i shoulda remembered that and used it on this tool from an rtt that blatant cheated but the judge waffled and thought a land raider redeemers flamestorm cannon could somehow hit a unit on top of a bastion, i wouldve loved to have done that though ...

I know this if off-topic, but if the flamestorm cannon template could touch a fire point on that bastion, then yes you could be hit by it even if you're inside.

willydstyle wrote:

Because they disagree with you about an ambiguous rule?

That makes me glad I don't have to play against you and I even voted for the first option...

Yeah, I'm known for my poor sportsmanship and being a total PITA to play.... MAH TOY SOLDIERZ IZ SERIOUZ BIZNESS RAAAHH!

I guess Internet smilies don't work anymore...

Protip: You never really play against another player; you play with them- you both have to cooperate to play the silly game after all.

Here's the big question. Why would they errata it from squads to units then?

Timmah wrote:Here's the big question. Why would they errata it from squads to units then?

RTFM!

All joking aside, there is no such thing as Squads. The correct terminology is "units".
Funny how they errata'd that but still ignore the whole "Charge" issue.

no, we werent playing planetstrike, it was just a declared one level piece of terrain. theres no legal manner to hit the unit

How did you get your dudes on the parapet if it wasn't a building?

Jump Infantry? They can land on impassable terrain, which the top of an intact building is usually classified as

I'm confused. You mean the special rule that overrides the main rulebook and grants a vehicle a cover save doesn't work?

Are you going to tell me that Bjorn doesn't get an invulnerable save because it invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds according to the BRB?

Under strick RaW the vehicle get sthe cover save but can only use it against wounds. Just like Bjorn can only use his invulnerable save against wounds.

However the above is obviously not how it is intended to play and I'd say the rules are pretty clear that yes Vehicles get the cover save and they can use it against penetrating and glancing hits. In a Tourney it could be ruled the other way if so you should be entitled to walk off and get a full refund as they are being total if I was playing someone and they tried to pull that (not that I use SW so it would never happen but) I'd take my models off and play someone else.

FlingitNow wrote:However the above is obviously not how it is intended to play

Prove it

In a Tourney it could be ruled the other way if so you should be entitled to walk off and get a full refund as they are being total

Huh? You are saying that you are entitled to a refund because the Tournament organisers want people playing by the rules?

if I was playing someone and they tried to pull that (not that I use SW so it would never happen but) I'd take my models off and play someone else.

Which says a lot more about your character than theirs, truth be told.

Prove it

I'll prove beyond reasonable doubt. Bjorn has an invulnerable save using the oposite interpretation implies he can only use this save against wounds. So why did GW give him the save? Because they expect people to work out vehicles take saves (be that cover or invulnerable) against Penetrating and glancing hits rather than wounds. Surely you agree that the vehicle get sthe save (as does Bjorn) yet you are claim GW is intending them to only use against wounds (which they don't have)? No reasonable person would argue this.

You are saying that you are entitled to a refund because the Tournament organisers want people playing by the rules?

They aren't playing by the rules though, so what is you point? I'm saying that you are entitled to a refund if the Tournament isn't using the rules and doesn't tell you before hand what house rules they are applying.

Which says a lot more about your character than theirs, truth be told.

Then fair enough I play in the spirit of the game and whilst I'll generally let my opponents get away with anything I am either unsure of or not bothered by doing something I know so clearly is against rules I'll pull them up on. If they insist on breaking rules I won't play them. If that makes me unreasonable then so be it.

FlingitNow wrote:No reasonable person would argue this.

I am reasonable. I argue this. I know that, by the rules, Bjorns Invulnerable save only works against wounds. Anyone saying otherwise is not playing by the rules.

And, yet again, a blind idolatry of RAW leads to something that goes against fairly clear RAI...

For what it's worth, the rules for cover saves never actually mention taking them against wounds (whereas both the Armour and Invulnerable saves sections specify wounds).

Further, the rules for vehicles specify that vehicles may take cover saves against penetrating and glancing hits, going so far as to specify that the cover save roll is the same as it would be for a non-vehicle model (i.e., 3+, 4+, etc....).

I guess the only "confusing" part for RAW purists is that some wargear/abilities don't specify that the vehicle counts as 'obscured' (compare the SW psychic power to a big mek's KFF, for example). This seems a needless splitting of hairs; an ability that grants a cover save is assumed to meet the requirements to grant the cover save (i.e., a unit Grey Hunters in the open is granted a cover save, without the need to be in cover, much as a Rhino could be granted a cover save, without the need to have 50% of its model obscured.

I'm still uncertain about where the RAW argument comes from that vehicles cannot take cover saves-- it seems rather explicitly stated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I see it now.

"If the target is obscured, ... it may take a cover save."

I still think "At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is
being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured" addresses this.

If you can claim to be in cover, you are said to be obscured. If I am explicitly granted a cover save, I can claim to be in cover, and, if this is the case, I am obscured.

I think the RAI is painfully clear here, and the RAW seems to support the RAI. The defining characteristic of a vehicle said to be obscured is whether or not it can claim cover. If it can claim cover, it is obscured.

Here is GW, Here is a special rule GW wrote that worked just fine before (Squads is defined in the BRB on page 3 btw, as an alternate desciptor to 'units')
and here is the errata that makes the internet hemorrhage into a nerd-rage fest that splits the community in twine, and starts fights over a game of little toy soldiers.

Here is GW...

Although I play Space Wolves, and I run mech lists with Rune priests all the time, I am going to dodge this whole arguement by NOT taking the storm caller power.

Kart... - you missed the entire context of "saves", which does specify wounds.

In addition you have made a logical fallacy: if you are obscured you are in cover, but you cannot *assume* that having a cover save makes you obscured.

Demogerg wrote:Here is GW, Here is a special rule GW wrote that worked just fine before (Squads is defined in the BRB on page 3 btw, as an alternate desciptor to 'units')
and here is the errata that makes the internet hemorrhage into a nerd-rage fest that splits the community in twine, and starts fights over a game of little toy soldiers.

Here is GW...

Although I play Space Wolves, and I run mech lists with Rune priests all the time, I am going to dodge this whole arguement by NOT taking the storm caller power.

Solution- just spam more JAWS!

Does the rules in the BRB say you may ONLY take invulnerable/cover saves against wounds? Or is it just giving an example of what they can be taken against.

Likewise, which rule am I breaking by taking an invulnerable save against a penetrating hit? Can you quote the rule itself?

CptZach wrote:Likewise, which rule am I breaking by taking an invulnerable save against a penetrating hit?

How would you do that?

CptZach wrote:Does the rules in the BRB say you may ONLY take invulnerable/cover saves against wounds? Or is it just giving an example of what they can be taken against.

It only gives rules for taking saves against wounds. It does not list these as an "example" - as only infantry are considered at this point, and vehicles are not introduced until much later

CptZach wrote:Likewise, which rule am I breaking by taking an invulnerable save against a penetrating hit? Can you quote the rule itself?

Can you please find a rule that allows you to take invulnerable saves against penetrating or glancing hits? You can only do what you are told you CAN do. If you want to do something YOU must provide the rule letting you do it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Can you please find a rule that allows you to take invulnerable saves against penetrating or glancing hits? You can only do what you are told you CAN do. If you want to do something YOU must provide the rule letting you do it.

Sure, Bjorn himself gives a rule that states he may take an invulnerable save against any penetrating or glancing hit.

No, his rule does not state that. It says he has an invulnerable save but does not include the wording similar to BRB cover saves for vehicles, where is states they can take invulnerable saves exactly as if it was against wounds.

Clearly, when confronted with Bjorn's wording "a 5+ invulnerable save against glancing or penetrating hits", the wisest course of action is to halt the game if Bjorn is glanced or penetrated. If the save is passed, you're now in the unknown territory of not knowing how to apply a save against a hit. Worse, if the save is failed then the other player is in the unknown territory of attempting to resolve either an unsaved glancing hit or an unsaved penetrating hit against a vehicle.

Simply put the dice down on the table and wait calmly while a rules cleanup team is dispatched to your location.

I know that, by the rules, Bjorns Invulnerable save only works against wounds. Anyone saying otherwise is not playing by the rules.

Sorry you say you know this is the case by the rules please prove that RAI (which is the rules) is that GW gave Bjorn and invulnerable save that he can not use. Please prove what you know beyond the reasonable doubt Or even highlight why there is any doubt about him being able to use the invulnerable save GW have given him..

BRB wrote:Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry....

So vehicles don't benefit from cover unless a bunch of criteria are passed.
Going by the main rulebook.

SW Errata wrote:...he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save.

So all friendly units benefit from cover based on the specific wording of the SW Codex Errata. To expand upon the Errata, we can look at the definition of 'units' within the rulebook. The rulebook defines unit types as infantry, beasts and cavalry, monstrous creatures, jump infantry, artillery, bikes and jetbikes, and vehicles.

Using nothing but rulebook definitions, we can then re-write the Space Wolf Errata to read:

SW Errata wrote:...he and all friendly infantry, beasts and cavalry, monstrous creatures, jump infantry, artillery, bikes and jetbikes, and vehicles within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save.

Let's parse the statements a bit to just get the most relevant parts for this conversation. Doing so, we are left with:

SW Errata wrote:... vehicles within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save.

BRB wrote:Vehicles do not benefit from cover...

These two rules are directly contradictory. In these situations, GW has told us that the codex takes precedence. Thus, vehicles can benefit from cover at a specific value of 5+.

To look at it further, if we need to, Stormcaller errata specifies that the only relevant part of the Cover rules are the benefits. All of the mechanics preceding the beneficial results, and any detrimental effects, are therefore ignored (or rather, they are assumed to have already been fulfilled) since the rule only specifies that benefits are applied, not the actual mechanics of cover.

These are the Rules as Written. No RAI is necessary.

The vehicle recieves a cover save - granted. It is just a cover save that may only be used against *wounds*, not hits of either kind (pen/glance) - this is only provided by being *obscured*

Nothing that you have given overrides that.

no cover save can be taken by a vehicle without being obscured.

Also, sourclams. Its easy to make almost any rule text say what you want it to say when yout ake it out of context, and change words inside of it ...

Armor and Invulnerable saves specify wounds. Cover saves do not.

Sourclams is Correct.

mon-keigh slayer wrote:
Also, sourclams. Its easy to make almost any rule text say what you want it to say when yout ake it out of context, and change words inside of it ...

I replaced a defined game term (the word 'units') with the definition of the game term given by the rulebook. My rule quote was neither out of context, nor were 'words changed' except to add the definition of a defined game term.

Sourclams - except that the only way for you to be considered obscured within the Cover Saves context is to look at the rules on page 16, which define an infantry model....so while it does not explicitly state wounds a) the entire section does, under the main heading, thus setting context, and b) in any case it only gives you permission to determine cover saves in relation to a non-vehicle model.

So again, it may receive a cover save, but without being obscured it does not have permission to use that save against hits. This ONLY comes from the Obscured section in the vehicle rules

Sourclams is certainly hitting the nail on the head. An obscured vehicle is a vehicle that can take a cover save. But you don't have to be obscured to receive a cover save if something grants it.

Basically what I am saying is being obscured is not the end all be all for a vehicle to receive a cover save, just like units in cover can physically be out of cover as long as their is a piece of war-gear or spell to grant one.

Even the RB calls a vehicle that is obscured as taking a 'cover save'. Saying that a cover save is a save only taken against 'wounds' obviously is not right. It says physically in the RB that a vehicle can take a cover save just like a non-vehicle model can against a 'wound'. There is no such thing as an 'obscured save' Obscured is just a state the vehicle is in if you only see less than 50% of it. When in that state, the vehicle may take a 'cover save' as noted above. So, any thing that can grant a special cover save (wargear/spell) most certainly can grant it to a vehicle.

Basically what I am saying is being obscured is not the end all be all for a vehicle to receive a cover save, just like units in cover can physically be out of cover as long as their is a piece of war-gear or spell to grant one.

Technically by RaW there is no mechanism to take a cover save against anything other than a wound. The only case where you are allowed (by RaW) to take a cover save against a glancing or penetrating hit is if they have the status obscured.

So yes the vehicles do indeed get the cover save under RaW but it is of little use to them as they can only use it against wounds. This is strict RaW.

However that doesn't change the rules which are clearly that a vehicle can take this cover save and that vehicles take saves against penetrating and glancing hits instead of wounds. Anyone claiming that the rules are different are claiming that GW intentionally gave Bjorn an invulnerable save he can not use which is a ludicrous position to hold.

FlingitNow wrote:However that doesn't change the rules which are clearly that a vehicle can take this cover save and that vehicles take saves against penetrating and glancing hits instead of wounds.

Huh? What are you talking about? The rules are very clear that you CANNOT take this cover save, because the vehicle is not obscured. Anyone saying otherwise is NOT following the rules.

Anyone claiming that the rules are different are claiming that GW intentionally gave Bjorn an invulnerable save he can not use which is a ludicrous position to hold.

Why is it "ludicrous"? Because you say so?

FlingitNow wrote:
Anyone claiming that the rules are different are claiming that GW intentionally gave Bjorn an invulnerable save he can not use which is a ludicrous position to hold.

And you can say with 100% truthfulness and a straight face that GW write pefectly legible and comprehensible rules?

Did GW intentionally give an unusable invulnerable save? No. Did GW unintentionally give him an unusable save? Looks like it.

GW have intentially written a caveat for vehicles/MC that states the a vehicle/MC must be obscured before it can take the benefit of any cover.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that this makes sense or is fair, but we are arguing that this is what the rules as written, not as intended or what is fair, conclude.

Cheers

Andrew

I agree with Sourclams. People have gotten the 'RAW' mightily confused here.

Page 62 of the rulebook explains how to take a cover save with a vehicle.

Now, NORMALLY this cover save is granted via being 'obscured' but there is no rule stating this is the only possible way for a vehicle to be granted a cover save.

Other special rules, such as Storm Caller grant all units within a specified distance a cover save...that's all the RAW you need in order to grant the vehicle a cover save and then you simply refer to page 62 to determine what a successful cover save does for a vehicle.


So to put it succinctly:


P1. Stormcaller grants all units within 6" a cover save (pg 37 of the SW codex combined with the GW errata).
P2. Page 62 of the rules, 'vehicles and cover -- obscured targets': "If the [cover] save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table."

C1. If a vehicle within 6" of a model using Stormcaller suffers a hit the player may make a cover save and if successfully passed, no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table.

And you can say with 100% truthfulness and a straight face that GW write pefectly legible and comprehensible rules?

No which is entirely my point

Did GW intentionally give an unusable invulnerable save? No. Did GW unintentionally give him an unusable save? Looks like it.

Then you agree that the rules are that he does get the save, but that RaW denies him this.

GW have intentially written a caveat for vehicles/MC that states the a vehicle/MC must be obscured before it can take the benefit of any cover.

Wrong actually the caveat only applies to those models using the cover save against penetrating or glancing hits. Hence the caveat was clearly not intentional in that they wished to differentiate how vehicles got cover and were considered obscured or hull down as opposed to infantry. Not that obscured is the only way a model can use a save against glancing/penetrating hit. I think they'd assumed we could work out Vehicles take saves from glancing and penetrating hits as described in that section of the rules irregardless of how they've aquired that save (being give an inv. save or being given a cover save from some other means).

I don't think anyone here is arguing that this makes sense or is fair, but we are arguing that this is what the rules as written, not as intended or what is fair, conclude.

Yes I agree that this is RaW I've said so many times, but that does not make it the rules as it is clearly not the case.

sourclams wrote:Armor and Invulnerable saves specify wounds. Cover saves do not.

Yep. To bad they could not just errata bjorn's rule to say:

"Bjorn ingores a penetrating or glancing hit on a 5+" or something similar.

Why make it an invul save? How freaking stupid.

GW at it's best...

Why make it an invul save? How freaking stupid.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand vehicles take saves against penetrating and glancing hits? How freaking stupid...

Yakface - except you have removed the first sentence from that quote, the one which defines how to redefine the cover save:

BRB page 62 wrote:
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

Therefore "this cover save", referenced in the next sentence, can only be a cover save that is a result of being obscured - you MUST be obscured first before you can use a cover save against hits

FlingitNow wrote:

Why make it an invul save? How freaking stupid.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand vehicles take saves against penetrating and glancing hits? How freaking stupid...

Except for the fact you are forgetting we are not talking about any save, but invul saves. Invul saves are taken vs wounds.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yakface - except you have removed the first sentence from that quote, the one which defines how to redefine the cover save:

BRB page 62 wrote:
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

Therefore "this cover save", referenced in the next sentence, can only be a cover save that is a result of being obscured - you MUST be obscured first before you can use a cover save against hits

Re-read cover save on page 21.

In it you will find that cover saves are only granted to models (referring to infantry in the examples) by those models being 'obscured' from the point of the view of the firer (pg. 21 "When any part of the target model's body is 'obscured' from the pint of view of the firer, the target model is in cover")

Going by your own logic, then all models need to be obscured every single time or between objects in area terrain to receive a cover save. Because by your logic, being obscured is the only way to receive cover. Obviously not. We know models have other ways to receive and grant cover yet the RB covers *none* of those other methods of receiving cover except by being 'obscured' in some way or being between terrain pieces given via area terrain.

Basically, all units can receive a cover save from a spell/war-gear that grants it or no unit does...and we know the answer.

That is NOT my logic at all - as non-vehicle models can still *use* any cover save against wounds, as that is what a cover save is defined as working to prevent. There is not the same restriction, as vehicles have to *change* how a cover save operates in order to work - they have to change it from working against wounds to working against hits. The *only allowance* for you to do this is when you have the status "obscured". If you believe otherwise please provide an ability to use a cover save that is NOT against wounds, and that does not follow from "IF THE VEHICLE IS OBSCURED" that I quoted above.

In essence: being obscured allows non-vehicle models to be in cover, and this gives them a cover save. It is not a requirement to *use* the cover save as the cover save allows saves against wounds, and does not require "obscured" to trigger this allowance.

Vehicle models that have been provided a cover save must *also* be obscured, as this is the only method by which a cover save can be changed from working against wounds to working against glancing / penetrating hits.

See the last KFF thread for a better break down of this - the last few pages where I finally managed to explain my thoughts to Insaniak!

And the only way for an infantry model to claim cover is to have the status "obscured" too...I don't see where you are going with this. The RB does say that when 'obscured' the vehicle may take a cover save as a model would against a wound.

So...if infantry need to be 'obscured' to receive a cover save, and a vehicle needs to be 'obscured' to receive a cover save...I really don't see a problem here. the 'obscured' status is just a state that grants a cover save which is allowed by both vehicles and 'models with wounds' as described by the RB.

And other stuff grants cover saves...

EDIT: you will also find after reading all the rules covering cover saves...that no where does it say anything about 'wounds'. But I guess you can play how you want.

Except for the fact you are forgetting we are not talking about any save, but invul saves. Invul saves are taken vs wounds.

In RaW yes you are correct in the rules you are wrong. ANY save a vehicle takes be it cover, Invulnerable or armour save it takes them against glancing and penetrating hits. That is the rules as proven by Bjorn existing.

Please otherwise tell me why GW intentionally gave Bjorn a save he could not use? Why would they do this?

FlingitNow wrote:

Why make it an invul save? How freaking stupid.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand vehicles take saves against penetrating and glancing hits? How freaking stupid...

FlingitNow, this is a clear violation of Rule #1. Please read the Dakka Posting Rules and adhere to them. Failure to follow the rules will result in disciplinary action.

Thank you.

FlingitNow, this is a clear violation of Rule #1. Please read the Dakka Posting Rules and adhere to them. Failure to follow the rules will result in disciplinary action.

To clarify it was not my intention to call him "freaking stupid" I was just using his words to explain GWs actions and hence why I did not think I was breaking rule 1.

So I'd like to extent unreserved apologies to imweasel if he felt I was calling him directly stupid or offended him personally in any way

padixon wrote:And the only way for an infantry model to claim cover is to have the status "obscured" too...I don't see where you are going with this. The RB does say that when 'obscured' the vehicle may take a cover save as a model would against a wound.

Erm, no. I suggest you read the sections again. "When Are models in cover?" just states how to determine when models are "in cover", i.e. from terrain or other models. It does not dictate that the ONLY way to take a cover save is when you are obscured.

padixon wrote:So...if infantry need to be 'obscured' to receive a cover save,

That is incorrect, as is shown above. Being obscured by terrain is ONE way to receive a cover save, it does not define it as the ONLY way.

padixon wrote: and a vehicle needs to be 'obscured' to receive a cover save...I really don't see a problem here. the 'obscured' status is just a state that grants a cover save which is allowed by both vehicles and 'models with wounds' as described by the RB.

And again, you are (delberately?) ignoring what I have posted: being obscured is NOT how you "receive" a cover save, being obscured as a vehicle is how you *change how a cover save works from wounds to hits* which is what is needed to *use* a cover save. You may have a cover save, e..g from being within 6" of a KFF, but unless you are ALSO obscured that cover save may only be taken against wounds.

There is a massive difference between *having* something and being able to *use* it, for example I may have a gun but cannot use it without the correct permit. Obscured is the permit to use. I asked you for a rule which allows vehicles to [b]use[b] cover saves against penetrating / glancing hits that is not the rule on page 62. You have not provided that.

padixon wrote:EDIT: you will also find after reading all the rules covering cover saves...that no where does it say anything about 'wounds'. But I guess you can play how you want.

*sigh* And as I mentioned, repeatedly, if you read the entire "Make Saving Throws" section it ONLY deals with wounds - it's called context. You are told you can make saving throws against wounds, and they then specify the three different types of saves. Context tells you that they only mean saves against wounds.

You can play however you want, just letting you know its a houserule if you play that vehicles can use cover saves against hits when not obscured.

You can play however you want, just letting you know its a houserule if you play that vehicles can use cover saves against hits when not obscured.

Whilst the rest of your post is spot on this part is wrong. In fact playing that a vehicle needs to be obscured to use a save against penetrating hits is a house rule derived from RaW.

Whilst RaW backs you up and is totally correct RaW is not the rules and in this case the rules are clear as illustrated by the existance of Bjorn.

I am continually baffled at the assertion that the rules as written are not rules.

Just saying.

I am continually baffled at the assertion that the rules as written are not rules.

Why are you baffled by this? Why would you think they are the same? The FAQs and Codexes that have come uout and just the way the rules are written highlight that GWs rules writing is far from perfect. Do you really beleive that GW writes all the rules 100% perfectly and the exact words match up totally with their intentions? If so why did they give Bjorn the invulnerable save he can't use?

FlingitNow wrote:
In RaW yes you are correct in the rules you are wrong.

Oh no, he's at it again. That is not how the rules, RAW, or YMDC work Fling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And again, you are (delberately?) ignoring what I have posted: being obscured is NOT how you "receive" a cover save, being obscured as a vehicle is how you *change how a cover save works from wounds to hits* which is what is needed to *use* a cover save. You may have a cover save, e..g from being within 6" of a KFF, but unless you are ALSO obscured that cover save may only be taken against wounds.

The SW Errata specifies that units only receive the benefits of a 5+ cover save. Thus the actual mechanics, and anything at all that precedes the benefits, is irrelevant.

The benefits of a pension plan follow from working for 20 years, but I do not necessarily have to work for 20 years if some special status grants me the benefits of a pension plan.

There is a massive difference between *having* something and being able to *use* it, for example I may have a gun but cannot use it without the correct permit. Obscured is the permit to use. I asked you for a rule which allows vehicles to [b]use[b] cover saves against penetrating / glancing hits that is not the rule on page 62. You have not provided that.

The SW Errata, as I said, specifies that only the benefits of cover saves apply. This is the special permit.

*sigh* And as I mentioned, repeatedly, if you read the entire "Make Saving Throws" section it ONLY deals with wounds - it's called context. You are told you can make saving throws against wounds, and they then specify the three different types of saves. Context tells you that they only mean saves against wounds.

Actually the 'making saving throws' section only references wounds with respect to complex units and allocation. Having wounds is not necessary for making a saving throw, except as specified for armor and invulnerable saves.

You can play however you want, just letting you know its a houserule if you play that vehicles can use cover saves against hits when not obscured.

Your interpretation is actually the House Rule; you are ignoring the SW Errata and therefore RAW.

That is not how the rules, RAW, or YMDC work Fling.

You claim that RaW = The rules right?

Ok then by RaW BEFORE the SW FAQ came out if someone counter attacked with furious charge did they get the bonus? No they didn't. However the rule was clarified in the SW FAQ that they do in fact get the bonus. Hence RaW Changed, but as this was not listed as a rules change or Errata the rules have not changed. Therefore how can the rules and RaW possibly be the same thing?

RaI is the rules by definition the game was designed and is controlled by GW they choose what the rules are so their choices are what are the rules. What is written down is their attempt at communicating that to use, frequently that attempt is unclear or downright misleading or infact completely wrong (as in the example given above).

Hence I have proven categorically that Raw is not the rules and that RaI is the rules. Proving RaI is obvious often more difficult than proving RaW which is why RaW remains a good consistent tool for interpreting the rules. However when RaI is so clear RaW can be ignored...

sourclams wrote:
The SW Errata, as I said, specifies that only the benefits of cover saves apply. This is the special permit.

Sorry, it isn't. The benefits of a 5+ cover save are to save against Wounds, unless you are a vehicle and are obscured. Please show where this states that *vehicles* can use the save against *hits*

Oh wait, it doesn't. They GAIN a 5+ cover save *against wounds* as the rule *does not specify otherwise*. You have not shown permission to use the save against HITS, which is a special form of cover save rules granted by bening obscured - so as they are not obscured they do not receive the benefit of using it against hits. They recieve one benefit, just not one that is much use.

Flingitnow - no, the rules are the rules as written down in the book. Anything else, i.e. trying to derive "intent", is by definition NOT the rules. In addition given that GW state anything in the FAQ that is not an errata is a Studio Houserule, claiming it has altered the RaW is incorrect. You can only argue it has changed RaI, but the Rules AND the RaW have not been changed - only those who follow Studio Hosue Rules, as distinct from the actual Rules, would do that.

Cover Saves do not specify wounds. Repetition ad nauseum.

FlingitNow wrote:
You claim that RaW = The rules right? . . .
Hence I have proven categorically that Raw is not the rules and that RaI is the rules.

Why do I think the rules as written are rules?
The wording, it is literally true.

Do I think that is the end of the issue? Usually.

Do I think the writers intended to write the words they wrote? Yes.

Do I think they write perfect rules? No.

Do I think they write rules? Yes.

Does stating that rules have errata and errors mean that they are not rules? No.

Does stating that one knows the intent was to write rules other than what was written change the rules? No.

Rules as Written are rules, or the phrase is being used incorrectly. If one claims that there are other rules, this could be correct. If one is claiming that the written rules are not rules, that is incorrect.

sourclams wrote:Cover Saves do not specify wounds. Repetition ad nauseum.

The entire section on taking saves only talks about wounds. You ignore this ad nauseum.

If the cover saves section could be used to take saves against hits, why do you think page 62 telling you you must be obscured to take saves against hits and not wounds exists? To provide you with something else to ignore?

FlingitNow wrote:Please otherwise tell me why GW intentionally gave Bjorn a save he could not use? Why would they do this?

You mean like all the other rules that gw has borked over the decades?

RAW he can't use the save.

As far as gw's intentions, I haven't the foggiest idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:So I'd like to extent unreserved apologies to imweasel if he felt I was calling him directly stupid or offended him personally in any way

Even with a very terrible day I'm having, I did not take it personally. No apology is necessary.

Takes a lot more than this to offend me.

First of all, this needn't be a revival of the RAW vs. RAI debate. However, just remember that 40k makes no use of "reserve" words and often uses several different words to reference the same idea (especially in old codices) so unfortunately, if you say you only play by RAW you are just simply wrong because 40k breaks down in its RAW form, 'nuff said. On this particular topic, the arguments seems to be (at least one of them), that no connection can be made between wounds and glancing and penetrating hits. However, remember when resolving Walker CC, every roll made on the vehicle penetration chart counts as a "wound" for interpreting who won the CC. While this isn't perfect evidence for saying that you can treat a roll on the penetration table as a "wound" it certainly opens up the possibility. Furthermore, many of you who are diehard RAW fans really need to learn about logic before you take that stance. Because as the BRB says:

At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured (or ‘hull down’).

All this is referring to is one of the ways in which a vehicle may take a cover save, it in no place says this is the only way, and to assume so is logical fallacy. Furthermore, since all codices overwrite the BRB if the special rules grant a vehicle a cover or invulnerable save then you can take the save, because that's obviously the intention, and 40k wasn't written in a way that lends itself to RAW interpretations.

Adamah - yet you go on to commit logical fallacies themselves, i.e . the fallacy of perfection (they would not have given a rule unless they meant it to do X) and the Strawman fallacy - the quote you provided was a) not one that has been used to support our arguments, and b) that is not the argument we were making.

Page 62 clearly tells you that cover saves may only be taken by wounds UNLESS you are obscured, in which case cover saves may be taken against hits AS IF they were wounds.

Again, I am not stating you may not be granted a cover save from other sources than being obscured. Not at all. However there is no *permission* to use that save against HITS unless you are obscured.

Please, reread the part of Page 62 I quoted, and understand what it is telling you.

Yeah I mostly agree with nosferatu.

However I often try to use a combination of "RAI" and RAW, as some strict RAW rules are just random. Take bjorns invul save for example, it might not do anything by RAW, but one can GUESS that they didn't intend it to be useless. Its also "supported" by it saying its used against penetrating and glancing hits. Hence I would play it as they'd use it as a obscured 5+ cover save.

But think about the KFF, it specifically state that it grants vehicles a obscured cover save. Some other wargear don't. So I have a hard time being convinced that by "RAI" it should be able to get a cover save. I don't know what they intended when they wrote the rule, and I don't see anything that would specifically hint that they meant vehicles get it. I'd be more inclined to think RAI supports vehicles not getting the cover save, considering some wargear mentions obscuring vehicles.

Superior because if the rule said "obscured" the vehicle gets a 4+ save and the power seems to track the old SW power that gave a 5+.

Besides the question is how do you play this. Apparently some people can say that a vehicle is granted a cover save but can't use it with a straight face in a game. I would regard that as exceptionally poor sportsmanship if I saw that short of a TO ruling to that effect. In a friendly game, I would expect that SW player to raise an eyebrow before the other player was laughed out the door.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sourclams wrote:Cover Saves do not specify wounds. Repetition ad nauseum.

The entire section on taking saves only talks about wounds. You ignore this ad nauseum.

No. You ignore that the Errata only specifies the benefits of a cover save, and that cover saves do not specify wounds. You are glossing this very significant distinction over to read something like 'vehicles are in cover'. If all Stormcaller did was to give a model in-cover status, then vehicles would not get the save, as your argument points out.

However, Stormcaller specifically states that its effect skip right over all the mechanics of cover to go straight to the benefits. The prerequisites are assumed to either be fulfilled, or ignored for the purposes of this rule. Hence, vehicles receive the benefit of a 5+ cover save, and cover saves themselves do not specify wounds.

This is the literal RAW.

sourclams wrote:
However, Stormcaller specifically states that its effect skip right over all the mechanics of cover to go straight to the benefits. The prerequisites are assumed to either be fulfilled, or ignored for the purposes of this rule. Hence, vehicles receive the benefit of a 5+ cover save, and cover saves themselves do not specify wounds.

This is the literal RAW.

But I don't think it is. Stormcaller says all units within range receive a 5+ cover save, Yes?

For the purpose of the rest of this post I will assume that it does.

Is a vehicle a unit? Yes, fine it can potentially receive a cover save. Now look at P62 Vehicles and Cover.

First paragraph.

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry...blah...The difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following exceptions to the normal rules

So vehicles benefit from the effects of being within the effect of SC, but cover works in a different manner so what is that manner?

At least 50% of the facing of the model being targetted needs to be hidden by intervening terrain...blah

But none of the model is actually hidden, so we need to look at the 2nd last paragraph

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...

So the vehicle is in cover, but in order to benefit from it it has to be 50% obscured. But it isn't, it is a cover save that is supplied from a special rule. But the section detailing the interaction of special rules requires the ability of obscurement to be confered on the tank, which Stormcaller does not.

Cheers

Andrew

PS It just occurred to me that this is the flipside arguement to KFF and whether ork vehicles receive a 5 or 4+ save.

AndrewC wrote:So the vehicle is in cover, but in order to benefit from it it has to be 50% obscured. But it isn't, it is a cover save that is supplied from a special rule. But the section detailing the interaction of special rules requires the ability of obscurement to be confered on the tank, which Stormcaller does not.

Cheers

Andrew

PS It just occurred to me that this is the flipside arguement to KFF and whether ork vehicles receive a 5 or 4+ save.

Except for the fact that the specific wording in the space wolf faq simply states that all units get a 5+ cover save.

Nowhere does it say that they have to be obscured. They just get a 5+ cover save. Period. It's unconditional.

Andrew, what you posted is the mechanics by which vehicles receive the benefit of cover, via obscurement. This is ignored because Stormcaller specifies the "benefits of a 5+ cover save". For this reason we can skip past all of the mechanics, which is what you just listed, and go straight to the end result.

The end result of a cover save is specified under the 'Cover Save' heading, and as I keep saying, a 'Cover Save' does not specify wounds. This is why obscurement, the mechanics that take place before a vehicle is eligible for cover, is ignored for the purposes of Stormcaller.

Ignore the prerequisites, ignore the conditional qualifiers, ignore any detrimental effects, and go straight to the benefits. Because Stormcaller says so.

This is *not* the flipside of the KFF argument because the KFF states that vehicles are obscured. Thus, obscured rules are relevent and apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So the vehicle is in cover, but in order to benefit from it it has to be 50% obscured.

NO. The vehicle is not in cover. This is the part that people seem to be glossing over. Nothing about Stormcaller says that you are in cover, it simply states that you get the benefits of cover. Infantry does not have to roll for difficult terrain while under stormcaller's effects, and vehicles do not have to be obscured. All that applies is the benefits of a 5+ cover save. It's like having cake and eating it.

On the RaW of this issue I think sourclams is missing the point.

By RaW yes you get the save, but you can only use it against wounds. This is not due to some restriction.

You see there is no game mechanic for determining when a Vehicle would take the save.

Do they take it against all hits (before armour penetration rolls are made)? If so point to the section in the rules that allows this,

Do they take the save against penetrating and glancing hits? If so point to the rule that allows this.

Do they take the saves against individual damage table results? If so...

You'll find there is nothing in the rulebook that satisfies any of the above only the mechanic that allows you to take the save against wounds, hence the argument...

Why do I think the rules as written are rules?
The wording, it is literally true.

You seem to misunderstand the purpose and function of language. The rules are the rules created by GW they wrote them down to communicate them to us (which is the point of language, it communicates ideas it does not form them as you seem to believe) that communication is not perfect.

The rules were designed by games workshop and to say just because they wrote something poorly that overides the rules is bizarre to say the least. It is like trying to claim the written text has intelectual ownership o fthe rules rather than the games developers.

Do I think the writers intended to write the words they wrote? Yes.

Do I think they write perfect rules? No.

Do I think they write rules? Yes.

No they design rules and then try to communicate those through writing. The text is not the rules the ideas of the designers are the rules.

Does stating that one knows the intent was to write rules other than what was written change the rules? No.

You are right it doesn't change the rules the rules are still the intent, it can change the interpretation of the rules particularly if you were using RaW before.

Rules as Written are rules, or the phrase is being used incorrectly. If one claims that there are other rules, this could be correct. If one is claiming that the written rules are not rules, that is incorrect.

Very wrong. Look at the legal system it is not the wording of the law that matters but the spirit and intention of the law that matters. Hence if this was a legal case the judge would look at Bjorn invulnerable save and look at the written text only allowing him to use it against wounds and realise this was not the spirit or intention behind the law and hence Bjorn would get his save.

FlingitNow wrote:On the RaW of this issue I think sourclams is missing the point.

By RaW yes you get the save, but you can only use it against wounds. This is not due to some restriction.

Wrong. Cover Saves do not specify wounds, as Armor Saves and Invulnerable Saves do. This is a false restriction that you and a couple others are making up.

You see there is no game mechanic for determining when a Vehicle would take the save.

Do they take it against all hits (before armour penetration rolls are made)? If so point to the section in the rules that allows this,

Do they take the save against penetrating and glancing hits? If so point to the rule that allows this.

Do they take the saves against individual damage table results? If so...

You'll find there is nothing in the rulebook that satisfies any of the above only the mechanic that allows you to take the save against wounds, hence the argument...

This argument is irrelevant because nowhere under Vehicles and Cover-Obscured Targets is an order of operations, or how to actually take a cover save. If you are going to play this way, then you have to deny vehicles from taking a cover save, ever, since it is not allowed under Vehicles and Cover-Obscured Targets either.

So assuming that vehicles are actually able to take a cover save under certain circumstances, let's look at your final statement:

You'll find there is nothing in the rulebook that satisfies any of the above only the mechanic that allows you to take the save against wounds, hence the argument...

The Space Wolf Errata is the rule that satisfies the mechanic. Only the benefits of a 5+ cover save apply. Thus the mechanics are either ignored or considered fulfilled by the Stormcaller special rule.

This is what your argument fails to address. Assuming that vehicles can benefit from cover (and again, there's nothing in Vehicles and Cover-Obscured Targets that allows this, either), then Stormcaller fulfills all the necessary mechanics, and since Cover Saves do not specify Wounds, vehicles are eligible.

Well, now we will have to play no need for obscured with that power.

Thanks, sourclams.

Sourclams - no, you are (intentionally?) misrepresenting the power - the wording is VERY VERY different to the wording you are misquoting

[quote= SW Errata]‘he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save’

Suffice to say I disagree with your entire post, from the definition of 'Benefit', the lack of a 'Wounds' qualifier under both Taking Saves and Cover Saves, the effect of Stormcaller, and even your interpretation of Kustom Force Field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please, stop ignoring that the *entire* section on making saves only considers wounds, otherwise you are admitting that page 62 serves no purpose.

BRB wrote:Taking Saving Throws
Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw. This could be because of the target's armour, some other protective device or ability, or intervening models or terrain.

There is no reference to wounds. Not only is there no reference to wounds, but apparently only troops are allowed to take saving throws.

The rules then go on to explain how simple and complex units take saving throws, which is not relevant to vehicles.

But all of this is ignored by the Stormcaller rule since you skip all of the mechanics preceding the benefits of a 5+ cover save.

You have bolded that they get the "benefits" of the cover save, whereas in fact they "benefit from" the cover save. Also, do not misreprent my post in the way you have altered the wording used in the SW errata: I stated what "benefit from" means, not "benefit". Please correct this or retract it.

Benefit from is an alternative way of saying "have". It is nothing like the phrase you obviously intentionally changed to have a different meaning. "The benefits of a 5+ cover save" has an ENTIRELY different meaning, and is deliberately misleading.

"If all the models in a unit are the same, and have a single wound each" - so , no mention of wounds? The complex units section also talks about wounds. (and you are yet again deficient about vehicles - complex squadrons follow the complex units rules...)

Context - the entire saving throws section deals with Wounds.

You are intentionally changing the wording, despite being given the (and was available anyway) correct phraseology, and therfore disagreeing with your post is trivial.

I would suggest using the correct phrase and not ignoring that saving throws *consistently* takls about Wounds and Wounds only.

So, are you stating that page 62 is irrelevant? Stating that cover saves can innately be taken against Hits (despite the saving throws section dealing only with wounds, and page 62 stating that the usual state for cover saves is against wounds...) is what you are stating, which makes the rules on page 62 irrleevant. Under *your* logic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have bolded that they get the "benefits" of the cover save, whereas in fact they "benefit from" the cover save. Also, do not misreprent my post in the way you have altered the wording used in the SW errata: I stated what "benefit from" means, not "benefit". Please correct this or retract it.

Benefit from is an alternative way of saying "have". It is nothing like the phrase you obviously intentionally changed to have a different meaning. "The benefits of a 5+ cover save" has an ENTIRELY different meaning, and is deliberately misleading.

Actually that's a synonym of benefit. The definition of 'Benefit' is simply 'to be useful or profitable to'.

Context - the entire saving throws section deals with Wounds.

Actually it deals with wounds on troops. So how do Elite choices take saving throws? Or is it okay to ignore this bit?

BRB wrote:
Taking Saving Throws
Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw.

"troops" not "Troop" - once is a proper noun referring to the units selected from the Troops section, one is a synonym for squads.

As I am sure you well know. Or I hope you're not being intentionally facetious?

a) I was stating what "Benefit From" meant in this sentence, not "Benefit" and b) both are *very different* to what you misquoted.

Benefit From == Have.

When a thread boils down to nouns, proper nouns, synonyms, and definitions, the discussion is effectively over.

I don't think there's anything of worth to your argument, by RAW, and you quite clearly think the same of mine, by your RAW.

Let the poll pick the winner.

FlingitNow wrote: The text is not the rules the ideas of the designers are the rules.

Without wanting to drag this too far off track, I felt that this needed addressing because it seems to reflect a very different attitude towards rules discussion which is, I believe, where a lot of the lack of understanding opposing viewpoints is coming from.

When you buy a rulebook for a game, you're buying a book that contains the rules for that game. That's the entire purpose of the book. Those rules may be flawed, or poorly written... but they are what they are.

The ideas of the designers are how they may have wanted the rules to be... but what they put in the actual book is what the rules actually are. Because that's what they have published... They've said: here's the rules, in this handy book.

The designers may have intended certain things to work differently. They may play differently to what is written in the book. They may change the written rules through errata or FAQs (whether or not such changes are actually listed as such)... but the rules as written are the rules. Ideas are just ideas.


You are, of course, perfectly free to ignore the RAW and play the game the way you personally think the designers intended it to be played. But in YMDC, whilst we'll often point out that we play differently to the rules, or give personal interpretations on rules that can be read multiple ways, we tend to put a lot more weight on the RAW than on the RAI... because in most cases, the RAW is all that we actually have. RAI is just down to guesswork as to what we may personally believe is the best way to play it. We very rarely have any way of knowing whether our own guess as to what is the RAI is even remotely what the designers actually had in mind.

I would like to take a moment to comment on the Poll question, or, more accurately, the poll responses. I think the wording alone is enough to alter responses. The statement that 'no' is "the rules" means that 'yes' is 'not the rules,' a point obviously under contention. I'd like to think that a less biased phrasing would have led to a more representative poll response ('more representative' here meaning 'as played'-- I've never yet seen a TO or PUG here that claimed vehicles could not take take cover, or that Bjorn's Invul save is just for show).

That said... I agree with sourclams-- the case has been made for RAW (absolutists) and for RAI/RAP (everyone else) so... how 'bout that local sports team?

kartofelkopf wrote: The statement that 'no' is "the rules" means that 'yes' is 'not the rules,' a point obviously under contention. I'd like to think that a less biased phrasing would have led to a more representative poll response

Given that the poll was asking for how people play it, rather than how people perceive the rules, I'm not seeing that the way the poll responses are worded makes a difference. 'No' means 'no' regardless of whether or not you agree that 'no' is RAW.

sourclams wrote:When a thread boils down to nouns, proper nouns, synonyms, and definitions, the discussion is effectively over.

I don't think there's anything of worth to your argument, by RAW, and you quite clearly think the same of mine, by your RAW.

Let the poll pick the winner.

You were the one that brought the utterly inane "troops" somehow meaning "Troops" idea into it. And also entirely changed the meaning of a sentence in order to justify your reading...

I take it you accept that your "RAW" requires that the "If obscured...." paragraph on page 62 is effectively irrelevant? You have stated, repeatedly, that cover saves can be taken against hits regardless of obscured or not, therefore that is the only logical conclusion. It is a faulty premise, but some confirmation from yourself that this is your effective position would be good, at least to show some consistency.

In my reading page 20/21 only *ever* consider wounds, and that page 62 is the only permission to convert cover saves from working against wounds (which page 62 confirms is the default position) to working against hits.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yakface - except you have removed the first sentence from that quote, the one which defines how to redefine the cover save:

BRB page 62 wrote:
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

Therefore "this cover save", referenced in the next sentence, can only be a cover save that is a result of being obscured - you MUST be obscured first before you can use a cover save against hits

Because that sentence is unimportant to the point of this argument. All you've done is quote the normal condition required for getting a cover save and the result if that condition is met.

The thing is, we're not talking about normal conditions. We have a specific case where another rule (Stormcaller) determines whether or not a unit gets a cover save instead of the usual condition.


So normally, this is the condition and effect regarding cover saves:


Normal Condition:

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit...


Normal Result for Meeting That Condition:

[If the vehicle is obscured]...it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.



But in the case of Stormcaller, it gives us its own condition and result for meeting that condition:


Stormcaller's Condition:

Is the vehicle within 6" of a friendly Psyker using Stormcaller?


Result for Meeting Stormcaller's Condition:

[If the vehicle is within 6" of a friendly Psyker using Stormcaller]...then it benefits from a cover save.



Anyone here claiming that the RAW prevents vehicles from getting a cover save from Stormcaller while not obscured is not following the rules. No one has provided a logical argument showing that the rules say that.

The only thing you can prove is that normally the only way to get a cover save for a vehicle is to have it obscured, but Stormcaller grants the vehicle permission to get a cover save simply for being within 6" of the psyker, so the normal condition has absolutely no bearing.

insaniak wrote:

Given that the poll was asking for how people play it, rather than how people perceive the rules, I'm not seeing that the way the poll responses are worded makes a difference. 'No' means 'no' regardless of whether or not you agree that 'no' is RAW.

Well, the poll question proper isn't asking that at all-- it's asking if vehicles get cover saves. But, even in the context of the topic, the options are still: Yes being the "simple" answer and No being the "by the Rules" answer.

Just saying that the poll answers are slanted. I think Yak's argument is the most compelling of the ones presented, yet, according to the Poll responses, his approach is not the 'rules.' Not that this is a scientific poll or anything, just think a more well-worded question would yield more representative answers.


Edit: for spelling and clarity

Yakface - that was *not* my argument.

Yes, the vehicle receives a 5+ cover save. However, as it is not *obscured*, it only has permission to use the cover save rules as defined on page 20/21 - which all talk about *wounds*

So, yes, it has a 5+ cover save. That works against *wounds*. The rules on page 62 tell you that if you are *obscured* you may then take the cover save against hits

No other permission exists to convert the cover save from working against wounds to working against hits. Page 62 tells us that the normal state for a cover save is it works against wounds, as do pages 20/21.

kartofelkopf wrote:I would like to take a moment to comment on the Poll question, or, more accurately, the poll responses. I think the wording alone is enough to alter responses. The statement that 'no' is "the rules" means that 'yes' is 'not the rules,' a point obviously under contention. I'd like to think that a less biased phrasing would have led to a more representative poll response ('more representative' here meaning 'as played'-- I've never yet seen a TO or PUG here that claimed vehicles could not take take cover, or that Bjorn's Invul save is just for show).

That said... I agree with sourclams-- the case has been made for RAW (absolutists) and for RAI/RAP (everyone else) so... how 'bout that local sports team?

And yet the "yes" results are still outweighing the "no" results.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yakface - that was *not* my argument.

Yes, the vehicle receives a 5+ cover save. However, as it is not *obscured*, it only has permission to use the cover save rules as defined on page 20/21 - which all talk about *wounds*

So, yes, it has a 5+ cover save. That works against *wounds*. The rules on page 62 tell you that if you are *obscured* you may then take the cover save against hits

No other permission exists to convert the cover save from working against wounds to working against hits. Page 62 tells us that the normal state for a cover save is it works against wounds, as do pages 20/21.

The RB says vehicles take cover saves like a non-vehicle model does against wounds. Being obscured grants a cover save, *not* specifically a cover save that can *only* be taken as a non-vehicle model against wounds.

This is the argument that I think ( I am not you of course) that you are not seeing. We are saying a 'cover save is a cover save' for a vehicle and can be made just like a model would against wounds as per the RB which is RAW. Being obscured is simply a condition which grants a cover save, not some special cover save that is somehow different from everything else. The RB makes no mention of any special vehicle type cover save at all....anything else is reading to much into a very simple rule which simply states that vehicles take cover saves just like a non-vehicle model would against a wound, and being obscured is simply the *normal* way it would get a cover save.

Except page 20/21 only deals with cover saves working against wounds, and page 62 states being obscured lets you *convert* the way a cover save works, against wounds, into one that works against hits. Hence "IF OBSCURED" - the condition is IF you are obscured THEN....

"obscured" both grants a cover save *and* the ability to use that cover save against hits. Permission does not exist anywhere else to use cover saves against hits - "If obscured" is the only time cover saves are stated as working against hits.

I do see the argument, it is just not how I read the rules - essentially if you state that a standard cover saves works againt wounds AND hits, page 62 becomes entirely redundant

Dashofpepper wrote:

And yet the "yes" results are still outweighing the "no" results.

Yes, now... and it's still a (relatively) close run thing. Like I said above, I've yet to see a TO or PUG that ruled the other way, so it's surprising to see a large percentage of dakkaites voting in that direction.

Maybe that's totally off-base, and the poll results would be the same. But, it seems having less biased poll responses will lead to results that more accurately reflect the way games are actually played.

On topic:

P62 addresses exceptions to "the normal rules for cover."

Obviously, stormcaller is not a "normal" method of acquiring cover, thus the 'normal' rules do not apply. Codex specifics > BRB general, and, RAW, p62 does not apply, as this is not a normal means of giving a vehicle cover.

Done, mark it.

Wrong. Cover Saves do not specify wounds, as Armor Saves and Invulnerable Saves do. This is a false restriction that you and a couple others are making up.

I never said this was a restriction I state specifically that it is not.

This argument is irrelevant because nowhere under Vehicles and Cover-Obscured Targets is an order of operations, or how to actually take a cover save.

Not irrelevant you're making things up now. The rules state in the obscured section that you take the save against penetrating and glancing hits. So that means when you suffer a penetrating or glancing hit you take the save that is the when.

If you are going to play this way, then you have to deny vehicles from taking a cover save, ever, since it is not allowed under Vehicles and Cover-Obscured Targets either.

So assuming that vehicles are actually able to take a cover save under certain circumstances, let's look at your final statement:

Given above this is irrelevant and wrong.

The Space Wolf Errata is the rule that satisfies the mechanic. Only the benefits of a 5+ cover save apply.

Yes the mechanic is they get the ebnefits of a cover save without the benefits of obscured. The benefits of a cover save (without the benefits of obscured) are you can take that save against wounds as specified under the mechanics for save throws. You have not provided a mechanic for a vehicle to take the save throw in any other way. QED


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Without wanting to drag this too far off track, I felt that this needed addressing because it seems to reflect a very different attitude towards rules discussion which is, I believe, where a lot of the lack of understanding opposing viewpoints is coming from.

When you buy a rulebook for a game, you're buying a book that contains the rules for that game. That's the entire purpose of the book. Those rules may be flawed, or poorly written... but they are what they are.

The ideas of the designers are how they may have wanted the rules to be... but what they put in the actual book is what the rules actually are. Because that's what they have published... They've said: here's the rules, in this handy book.

The designers may have intended certain things to work differently. They may play differently to what is written in the book. They may change the written rules through errata or FAQs (whether or not such changes are actually listed as such)... but the rules as written are the rules. Ideas are just ideas.

The laws that govern a country are written down yet it is not the wording that matters but the spirit and intention behind the Law (i.e. the RAI). You claim that strict RaW is the rules and claim that rules changes that are listed as clarifications are still changes but under strict RAW they are not as the words written down define them as clarifications. you can't have it both ways.

The rules are what GW designed and even going by strict RAW you can apply TMIR to make the rules WHATEVER the 2 players agree on now that may be RAW it may be RAI or it may be house rules.

You are, of course, perfectly free to ignore the RAW and play the game the way you personally think the designers intended it to be played. But in YMDC, whilst we'll often point out that we play differently to the rules, or give personal interpretations on rules that can be read multiple ways, we tend to put a lot more weight on the RAW than on the RAI... because in most cases, the RAW is all that we actually have. RAI is just down to guesswork as to what we may personally believe is the best way to play it. We very rarely have any way of knowing whether our own guess as to what is the RAI is even remotely what the designers actually had in mind.

This I agree with totally RAI is in general a guess at best and RAW is therefore the most consistent way to find an answer. But as proven by the SW FAQ this answer is not always correct (who'd have thought Counter Attack trigger Furious Assault).

However when RAI is so obvious and different to RAW then unless you agree specifically before hand that you are playing by RAW then RAI takes precedent as in the case for Bjorn's invulnerable save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

[If the vehicle is within 6" of a friendly Psyker using Stormcaller]...then it benefits from a cover save. /quote]

Why don't people read the thread. NO ONE is denying the vehicles gets a cover save. It is just the ONLY mechanic for them to benefit from it is to use it against a wound.

Normal Result for Meeting That Condition:

[If the vehicle is obscured]...it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.

Exactly but what does this mean? Does it mean you take the save against all hits? Only against Penetratring and glancing hits? Or against each individual damage result? You have not supplied a mechanism for taking the save against anything in particular out of above hence the only mechanic that applies is the one against wounds. Remember to take the save against Penetrating and Glancing hits you HAVE to be obscured under RAW. There is no rule defining that a Vehicle can take a save against specifically penetrating or glancing hits under any other circumstance.