Browsing through the army list section I ran across 2 lists that were razorback spam lists using a runepriest for a stormcaller 5+ save and a Blood angels list using a similar power.
Now I was under the impression that cover saves could only be claimed by vehicles if it had obscured status.
Both list creators said that the powers would cover vehicles.

Opinions? Are razorback spam lists really that stupid or is this just wishful thinking from some people.

Twalks wrote:Browsing through the army list section I ran across 2 lists that were razorback spam lists using a runepriest for a stormcaller 5+ save and a Blood angels list using a similar power.
Now I was under the impression that cover saves could only be claimed by vehicles if it had obscured status.
Both list creators said that the powers would cover vehicles.

Opinions? Are razorback spam lists really that stupid or is this just wishful thinking from some people.

I would say that the vehicles get a 5+ cover, rather than a 4+ cover. It still gets a cover save, but it isn't "obscured" so it can't get the 4+. IGNORE MEEEE!

So a runepriest casting stormcaller from inside a razorback confers a 5+ cover save to razorbacks around it in a 6" circle?

Neither power obscures the vehicle.

Twalks wrote:Neither power obscures the vehicle.

So? Nothing prevents the Vehicle getting a cover save, it only prevents them getting them from Area terrain.

Or, it can be argued that a vehicle has to be obscured. The Language is rather unclear.

I think this is the same situation as the Kans getting a 5+ cover save they cannot use. So yes, on 2nd thought, Storm Caller cannot help Razorbacks.

In the section about cover saves and vehicles it says if the target is obscured it may take a cover save.. I'm fully ready to agree with you gwar.. I just don't know if your actually right..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guess I caught you on an off day gwar...

Twalks wrote:In the section about cover saves and vehicles it says if the target is obscured it may take a cover save.. I'm fully ready to agree with you gwar.. I just don't know if your actually right..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guess I caught you on an off day gwar...

Yup, yes you did

Unless a vehicle has Obscured status it can only use cover saves against Wounds, as this is how Cover saves are defined initially.

So in this case - no useful cover saves for the razorbacks.

So why one earth would GW errata (not FAQ) the wording to say Units instead of squads if they did not want it to cover vehicles?

Gwar! wrote:IGNORE MEEEE!

Sigged. Maybe.

Because Squads did not exist in the SW codex?

Who knows what they wanted - according to the rules, ands this applies to Orks KFF as well, you MUST be obscured to use a cover save against Hits. That is it, finito, done.

Also on page 62 of the rulebook it states:

if a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured.... This is a 4+ COVER save...

Capitalization is mine.


So cover saves are used for vehicles not just wounds

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because Squads did not exist in the SW codex?

Who knows what they wanted - according to the rules, ands this applies to Orks KFF as well, you MUST be obscured to use a cover save against Hits. That is it, finito, done.

Yeah, fortunately the KFF does obscure vehicles, otherwise it would also be useless.

@OP: You're right. Only obscured vehicles can take cover saves. If it isn't obscured, it gets no save.

Clthomps wrote:Also on page 62 of the rulebook it states:

if a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured.... This is a 4+ COVER save...

Capitalization is mine.


So cover saves are used for vehicles not just wounds

Try reading the rules first.

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it.

Therefore, if it isn't obscured as well, it doesn't get to use the save.

Clthomps wrote:Also on page 62 of the rulebook it states:

if a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured.... This is a 4+ COVER save...

Capitalization is mine.


So cover saves are used for vehicles not just wounds

Wrong. Seriously, please either search on this (it has come up many times) or just, I dont know, READ the rest of the rules.

Yes, it is a cover save. Now, please show me the rule that lets you USE that cover save against HITS.

Ah yes! Thats right! It's the rule starting: "If the vehicle is Obscured...."

So, if youa re not obscured, you are "false" in the above if statement, and you cannot USE the cover save.

Gee, who'd have thought. Using something is not the same as having something.

Here is my case:

vehicles and cover, pg62- "at least 50% of 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."

I am not claiming that the vehicle is in cover when it is within range of shield of sanguinius (SoS), or stormcaller, just like infantry models are not in cover when they are in range of either power, I am just stating they are receiving a 5+ cover save. There are multiple ways for a model to receive a cover save: fast vehicles moving flat out, bikes turboboosting, actually being in cover, and being in range of an ability that grants you a cover save are some examples.

The part in the rulebook only talks about vehicles needed to be obscured toclaim to be in cover not receive a cover save

I realize that there is no precedent to SoS and stormcaller. KFF is similar, but like you have stated, it is different because it explicitly states that vehicles count as being obscured, but this is because when the ork book was released, vehicles couldn't get cover saves. So the only other example that we have is the skimmers moving flat out. Stating that because skimmers moving flat out grants 'counts as obscured' rather than 'receives a 4+ cover save' is not support for other new abilities that simply state "all friendly units within 6 inches receive a 5+ cover save" doesn't work for vehicles.

units, pg3- "a unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous or alien creature or a lone hero"

So a tank is a unit, and therefore receives a 5+ cover save from a power that states "all friendly units within 6 inches receive a 5+ cover save"

tjdieter2191 wrote:So a tank is a unit, and therefore receives a 5+ cover save from a power that states "all friendly units within 6 inches receive a 5+ cover save"

And as Nos and I have pointed out about a bajillion times, YOU CAN ONLY USE THIS COVER SAVE AGAINST WOUNDS.

Vehicles do not have wounds last I checked

When talking about cover saves, penetrating/glancing hits are synonymous with wounds.

vehicles and cover, pg 62- "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 would"

Where it states "if the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it," This is IMPLICIT, not explicit, meaning that in that case (but not only that case) you can take a cover save. There are other times that vehicle can receive a cover save... like being within range of an ability that grants friendly units a cover save.

tjdieter2191 wrote:When talking about cover saves, penetrating/glancing hits are synonymous with wounds.

vehicles and cover, pg 62- "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 would"

Where it states "if the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it," This is IMPLICIT, not explicit, meaning that in that case (but not only that case) you can take a cover save. There are other times that vehicle can receive a cover save... like being within range of an ability that grants a vehicle one.

Notice the first part of that sentence:
If the target is obscured.

if the Target is not obscured, then you stop right there.

No. I just stated, that 40k rules are implicit, not explicit. It is stating that in the case of the vehicle being obscured (but not only that case) you can take a cover save. It is impossible for the rules to be explicit, the rulebook cannot cover everything that can possibly happen, and tell you can't do it. It can only tell you what you can do. It is talking about when you can take cover saves, and before stormcaller and shield of sanginius there was no other time that a vehicle could get a cover save without being obscured.

tjdieter2191 wrote:No. I just stated, that 40k rules are implicit, not explicit.

And you have a rules quote to back this up?

The rules tell you what you CAN do, not what you can't. The Rules say you CAN take cover saves for vehicles "if the target is obscured". If they are not, you cannot. Simple.

Well if you are all going to read that deeply into the rules you should probably quote Pg 21 and 20 "cover saves" and "taking Saving throws"

pg 21 basicly says that cover saves are saving throws.

Pg 20 states that you take them before any model is removed as a casualty.

Neither says anything about wounds.

Yeah, my quote for you is: "does it state anywhere in the rulebook that I can't pick up your models and throw them against the wall? How about smash them with a hammer? No? Alright then, SMASH SMASH SMASH"


The rules HAVE to be implicit. There is no other way around it. And yes, it does state that you can take cover saves for vehicles if the target is obscured, but it doesn't state that that is the only time you can take cover saves for vehicles.

Clthomps wrote:Well if you are all going to read that deeply into the rules you should probably quote Pg 21 and 20 "cover saves" and "taking Saving throws"

pg 21 basicly says that cover saves are saving throws.

Pg 20 states that you take them before any model is removed as a casualty.

Neither says anything about wounds.

And how exactly are vehicles removed as casualties, when the rules say that models who lose their last wound are removed as casualties? Try to use all the rules when forming an argument, otherwise it just makes you look ignorant.

tjdieter2191 wrote:Yeah, my quote for you is: "does it state anywhere in the rulebook that I can't pick up your models and throw them against the wall? How about smash them with a hammer? No? Alright then, SMASH SMASH SMASH!

As I just said, the rules do not say what you cannot do, they say what you can do.

clthomps- Yes it does say a lot about wounds: "if the dice result is equal to or higher than the model's Sv value, then the WOUND is stopped. If the result is lower Sv value, then the model suffers a WOUND"

and like already stated, when it comes to saves, 'wounds' and 'glancing/penetrating hits' are synonymous.

tjdieter2191 wrote:and like already stated, when it comes to saves, 'wounds' and 'glancing/penetrating hits' are synonymous.

Except they are not. They only are IF THE TARGET IS OBSCURED. Seriously, how hard is that to understand?

No gwar. There is no 'only' in front of the 'if the target is obscured' in the rulebook. Being obscured is not the only time a vehicle can claim a cover save. The vehicle just has to be in obscured to 'claim to be in cover', not 'receive a cover save'. How hard is that to understand?

tjdieter2191 wrote:No gwar. There is no 'only' in front of the 'if the target is obscured' in the rulebook. Being obscured is not the only time a vehicle can claim a cover save. The vehicle just has to be in obscured to 'claim to be in cover', not 'receive a cover save'. How hard is that to understand?

Correct, they do not have to be obscured to get a cover save.

However, if they are not obscured, the cover save can only be used against wounds, which the Vehicle does not have, thus the Cover save cannot be used.

How does the vehicle have a cover save, but cannot use it? You either have, or have not. You can't have both.

tjdieter2191 wrote:How does the vehicle have a cover save, but cannot use it? You either have, or have not. You can't have both.

Easy. It has a cover save it can use against wounds. It can use it just fine, whenever it takes a wound.

Hey Mr. tjdieter2191 and any other doubters - I'm going to quote a couple of bit from the rulebook and wait for you to address how and why your argument ignores them.

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry"

"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 around"

"If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to avehicle the ability of being obscured even if in theopen, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex."

"but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save. "

Gwar! wrote:

tjdieter2191 wrote:How does the vehicle have a cover save, but cannot use it? You either have, or have not. You can't have both.

Easy. It has a cover save it can use against wounds. It can use it just fine, whenever it takes a wound.

I like what you did there.

But in spite of Gwar's obfuscation, you will find that Game As Played is that they vehicles get their cover saves just fine, in spite of not having wounds. So RAW, no, no cover saves, but go ahead and use them anyways.

don_mondo wrote:But in spite of Gwar's obfuscation, you will find that Game As Played is that they vehicles get their cover saves just fine, in spite of not having wounds. So RAW, no, no cover saves, but go ahead and use them anyways.

Funny, in my "Game as Played" we follow the rules. Yes, I know thats a horrible thing to do given the reaction I get from Dakka when I mention it, but it happens nonetheless.

Yeah, I know. We really ought to stop picking on you so much. But I promise, we ever get together, first round is on me!

don_mondo wrote:But in spite of Gwar's obfuscation, you will find that Game As Played is that they vehicles get their cover saves just fine, in spite of not having wounds. So RAW, no, no cover saves, but go ahead and use them anyways.

But again don you are not given permission to use them
"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 around"
Are you odscured? No then no cover save may be taken.

ChrisCP wrote:Hey Mr. tjdieter2191 and any other doubters - I'm going to quote a couple of bit from the rulebook and wait for you to address how and why your argument ignores them.

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry"

"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 around"

"If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to avehicle the ability of being obscured even if in theopen, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex."

"but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save. "

QFT

Sweet. Still nobody seems to understand that the rules are written implicitly, and codex trumps rulebook. When rulebook and codex are in contradiction, the codex always wins. So if the codex says you get a save, then you get a save. When it states that 'if the target is obscured... it may take a cover save against it' that doesn't mean that is when you are obscured is the only time that you get a cover save against a glancing or penetrating hit. The statement that you get a cover save for when you are obscured has no bearing on whether you get a cover save elsewhere. The codex rule of 'friendly units within 6 inches receive a 5+ cover save' is an addendum to the rulebook rules. It changes what is normally allowed, and gives the vehicle a cover save even though it is not obscured. So you can think of it being written as (with the codex addendum):

"If the target is obscured, or is granted a cover save by stormcaller/shield of sanginius, 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"

tjdieter2191 wrote:and codex trumps rulebook.

This is where I stopped reading because you have just proven that you have no idea how the rules work.

The Codex does NOT always trump the rulebook. If it did, Sweeping Advance wouldn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tjdieter2191 wrote:"If the target is obscured, or is granted a cover save by stormcaller/shield of sanginius, 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"

Awesome, I didn't know we were adding stuff to the rules now! Looks like all my Blood Claws are T10 with a 2+ Invulnerable save and a 72" assault move!

tjdieter2191 wrote:
"If the target is obscured, or is granted a cover save by stormcaller/shield of sanginius, 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"

Hey, if you make up rules and pretend they're quotes then your interpretation totally works!

No, a vehicle must be obscured to use cover saves.
There is only one rule in the book that allows it to work that way, and it is quite specific on that single requirement.

What do you mean sweeping advance wouldn't work?

And no, I didn't add stuff to the rules, the codex did, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I said it was just a way to look at it.

tjdieter2191 wrote:What do you mean sweeping advance wouldn't work?

Read the Sweeping Advance rules.

Are you referring to the 'no save or special rule can save them at this stage'?

tjdieter2191 wrote:Are you referring to the 'no save or special rule can save them at this stage'?

Yes. If Codex always over-rules rulebook, you could say "I have WBB!" or "My Codex says I get an Armour save, so I can!". Specific Rules Trump general rules. Normally this means Codex Trumps Rulebook, but this is Not always the case. Keep this in mind.

As such, the SPECIFIC Rules for Cover Saves for Vehicles trump the General Rules for all cover saves. Thus, a Vehicle with a cover save that is not also obscured can only use that save vs wounds, which a vehicle will never take because it doesn't have any.

You do get WBB after sweeping advance... but that's a different discussion altogether..

But okay, I don't believe either of us will be able to convince the other. But thank you for the intelligent and civil debate. Hopefully GW covers this in their FAQ. Have you added it to your own?

tjdieter2191 wrote:You do get WBB after sweeping advance... but that's a different discussion altogether..?

No, you don't. What part of "NO SPECIAL RULE CAN SAVE THEM" is unclear?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tjdieter2191 wrote: Have you added it to your own?

No, I don't add questions that have answers that are blindingly obvious, such as this one.

Wow, and wbb vs sweeping advance rears its ugly head amidst all this finger in the ear nonono im right.

As gwar said you get a 5+ cover save, you can only use it against WOUNDS unless youre obscured.

also wbb cant save you from being swept.

Since a vehicle is a unit, I dont see how a special rule stating "friendly units receive a 5+ cover save" can even be considered being argued against by any edited for inflammatory language person. If it states it gives the vehicle(or unit) a cover save, it gets a cover save unless the cover save is ignored(flamers), end of story.

EDIT: thus, when the vehicle recieves a pen/glance it can roll 5+ and not receive the pen or glance.

IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote:Since a vehicle is a unit, I dont see how a special rule stating "friendly units receive a 5+ cover save" can even be considered being argued against by any not-stupid person. If it states it gives the vehicle(or unit) a cover save, it gets a cover save unless the cover save is ignored(flamers), end of story.

EDIT: thus, when the vehicle recieves a pen/glance it can roll 5+ and not receive the pen or glance.

You may notice, if you scroll up and read the previous page, the dozen+ posts addressing this issue using the rules in the rulebook.
You are incorrect, by the rules.

You, yourself, on this very page, quoted a post saying that you are wrong with the relevant rules quotes and replied 'QFT'. I'm not sure where you get off calling literate people making rules-based arguments 'stupid'.

IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote:Since a vehicle is a unit, I dont see how a special rule stating "friendly units receive a 5+ cover save" can even be considered being argued against by any not-stupid person. If it states it gives the vehicle(or unit) a cover save, it gets a cover save unless the cover save is ignored(flamers), end of story.

EDIT: thus, when the vehicle recieves a pen/glance it can roll 5+ and not receive the pen or glance.

1) Noone is saying they dont receive a cover save. Seriously, reread others posts and note that noone is saying the dont HAVE a cov er save

2) You can only use cover saves againsdt wounds. Page 20/21 states this

3) The only way to USE a cover save against HITS is to be obscured. See the vehicle rules.

Therefore while you may HAVE a cover save you can only USE it against WOUNDS unless you are obscured.

What part of HAVE is not the same as USE is so hard for you to understand?

ANything else is breaking the rules.

I think Iggy is trying to use the common sense argument, but unfortunately common sense is rare in these parts.


I know all they gamers I play with run strict RAW. To bad for that iyanden player that can't fire any of his wraithguard units since they don't have eyes... Oh and also the tyranid players are suffering under the new codex since half the models don't exist so they can't be modeled on supplied bases... /sarcasm

Sorry, why is it "common" sense that they are affected?

Saying "but they changed it to units!!!!" doesnt mean anything, as "quads" didnt exist *at all* in the codex.

Indeed they changed it to units because people are lacking in common sense, and would make ridiculous arguments that the power doesn't do anything.


For further reading please see ZOMG!!!11!! Doom of M. has no inv save!!!

Clthomps wrote:Indeed they changed it to units because people are lacking in common sense, and would make ridiculous arguments that the power doesn't do anything.


For further reading please see ZOMG!!!11!! Doom of M. has no inv save!!!

So in other words you have nothing to back your argument up?

good one! you win the internetz!

Clthomps wrote:Indeed they changed it to units because people are lacking in common sense, and would make ridiculous arguments that the power doesn't do anything.

And how does the change provide any support for vehicles somehow being able to use a cover save against hits while unobscured?

Gorkamorka wrote:

Clthomps wrote:Indeed they changed it to units because people are lacking in common sense, and would make ridiculous arguments that the power doesn't do anything.

And how does the change provide any support for vehicles somehow being able to use a cover save against hits while unobscured?

It doesn't.

@ Nos:
Well how about the Idea of a massive blizzard covering a max unit of Thunder Wolves, but not a land speeder... Does that make sense? Everyone I know resorts to the common sense model when rules are in question.

@ gork: The connotations of the word "squad" is more than a handful of troops. The connotations of "unit" are singular or plural.

Clthomps wrote:@ Nos:
Well how about the Idea of a massive blizzard covering a max unit of Thunder Wolves, but not a land speeder... Does that make sense? Everyone I know resorts to the common sense model when rules are in question.

It doesn't have to. The rules are very clear in this instance.

Gwar! wrote:

tjdieter2191 wrote:How does the vehicle have a cover save, but cannot use it? You either have, or have not. You can't have both.

Easy. It has a cover save it can use against wounds. It can use it just fine, whenever it takes a wound.

If you find this a functional and productive reading of the rules, then I respectfully submit that you might find more receptive audiences if you clearly distinguished between your read of RaW vs RaP.

Mannahnin wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

tjdieter2191 wrote:How does the vehicle have a cover save, but cannot use it? You either have, or have not. You can't have both.

Easy. It has a cover save it can use against wounds. It can use it just fine, whenever it takes a wound.

If you find this a functional and productive reading of the rules, then I respectfully submit that you might find more receptive audiences if you clearly distinguished between your read of RaW vs RaP.

This is a functional and productive reading of the rules, and it is how I play the game. It is, coincidently, what the rules say, but this is my "RaP" nonetheless.

So under your interpretion, how did the wording change from "squads" to "units" change the way the power functions?

Mannahnin wrote:So under your interpretion, how did the wording change from "squads" to "units" change the way the power functions?

It made it so it works. There is no such thing as Squads in 40k, only units.

Gwar! wrote:There is no such thing as Squads in 40k, only units.

The name has squad in it, but it is a "unit" by the rules. There is no such thing as a "Squad".

So by the way you play the game, before that change, the power had no effect?

Mannahnin wrote:So by the way you play the game, before that change, the power had no effect?

Yes. Now with the Errata, it gives a 5+ cover save vs wounds to any unit in range.

Mannahnin wrote:So by the way you play the game, before that change, the power had no effect?

So by the way you play the game, after the change, the power grants an effect to vehicles (the ability to take the save against hits) that it has no rules basis granting, and one that is granted in the rules only under a single specific condition which has not been met?
Despite clear RAW and the fact that the rule, even post errata, completely lacks the necessary language present in probably a dozen examples of rules that actually grant that effect specifically (Kff, smoke launchers, etc.)?

Mannahnin wrote:So under your interpretion, how did the wording change from "squads" to "units" change the way the power functions?

The Space Wolf codex has no "Squads" in it - it has units, and packs, but not Squads. So by changing the rule they actually made the rule work.

It doesn't mean that this ability works on vehicles, as vehicles MUST be obscured in order to benefit. This is in the rules for vehicles, and unless you can come up with a different *rules* interpretation then that IS the rules.

Clthomps: As I said, you have nothing to back up your interpretation within the rules, and you have chanmged the rule so it works differently to the written rules. This is fine, however you need to acknowledge it is a houserule. "Common sense" is *your* common sense - and bringing fluff in as your only basis is a sign the rules argument has been lost by yourself, as fluff /= rules and never have. Otherwise space marines can now kill hundreds of guard per space marine.

So Gwar! do you allow Bjorns invuln save to have nullify glancing and penetrating hits even though invuln saves only are used against wounds?

Volkov wrote:So Gwar! do you allow Bjorns invuln save to have nullify glancing and penetrating hits even though invuln saves only are used against wounds?

How many times does this Strawman have to come up? What I do and what the rules say have no relation to each other.

How many times does this Strawman have to come up? What I do and what the rules say have no relation to each other.

This wasn't actually an attempt at a strawman argument, I am just curious as to whether you follow this seeming 'hell or high water' RAW interpretation of yours

Gwar! wrote:What I do and what the rules say have no relation to each other.

Thats damn near sig wrothy

This is a rather interesting thread to see both sides give their interpetations.

Cover saves for infantry give a wide and yet defined ways for what meets the prerequisite for a cover save. As vehicles are much larger to prevent rule abuse of sticking one wheel or track into terrain and claiming cover( despite the direction ) like infantry can, GW had to make special rules to what is considered a cover save for vehicle. The normal way a vehicle gains cover is 50% of it needs to be obscured as the rules state, this prevents creative ways that vehicles can get saves by using what is defined for infantry. Obscured is one way to gain cover for a vehicle (50%) so is smoke. There is no physical object on the board that obscures the vehicle during smoke but one simply assumes that it does and very few people bring cotton for effect in games, so its just assumed.

Shroud of Sanguinis: Basically states that any unit in 6" gain a 5+ cover save. Technically an infantry model in the open gain no cover save as defined by cover saves for infantry but yet they fall into the category of unit and within 6" thus gains the save by the ability. Vehicles are no different as they are also classed as a unit and ability doesn't single them out in text as to not gaining the ability. The ability only checks two things, is it a unit and is it in 6" while any prerequisites for cover are superseded by the ability. Gwar may still argue using the Obscured rule by playing rules lawyer so then lets get a definition of shroud.

to cover; hide from view.

Synonyms with shroud are also conceal, screen and obscure. So by definition it is basically obscured.

Stormcaller: Is pretty much the same thing with a different name. The ability that says all units in X range gain a cover save over-rides any other prereq to normally gain a cover save. Its not so hard to assume a thick rain, fog or blizzard can conceal, screen, obscure or shroud the unit so it gains its cover save.

RAW is no where close to perfect as there is another thread of silly examples where Raw just fails because people don't read for the intended effect but rather at what was poorly worded yet its intended effect is obvious.

Except it isnt "rules lawyering" - it is call following the clearly laid out rules in the rulebook.

Your "proof by synonym" is bunk, as well.

NOONE is arguing they do not have a cover save, however *by the rules* if you want that cover save to work against Hits you MUST be obscured. No ifs, no buts, that is the ONLY way you are using that cover save against hits.

Except it isnt "rules lawyering" - it is call following the clearly laid out rules in the rulebook.

Just a FYI, GW has NEVER made a clear set of rules. If they did we would never need FAQ rule clarifications. Even the main rules state their will be times where they are supersceded by codexs, which btw happens quite a bit. There are many rules in the WH40k Rules Book that give refrence to rules in codexs taking precedence.

Your "proof by synonym" is bunk, as well.

Why? Simply because you say so? I think not. You have posted nothing relevant of an arguement to say otherwise. Just as it would be legally binding to say a person fired from their job vs a person who is terminated from his job as to having the same meaning.

NOONE is arguing they do not have a cover save, however *by the rules* if you want that cover save to work against Hits you MUST be obscured. No ifs, no buts, that is the ONLY way you are using that cover save against hits.

Another fallacy. If you go by the strict letter of cover save for infantry by the rules, it would be impossible for infantry in the open to claim it. As they meet none of the listed requirements but the ability of both Shroud of Sanguinis and Stormcaller supersedes the prerequisites with its ability if succesfully casted. If you still wish to argue about the Obscured rule, the word shroud pertains to the same meaning. At this point, only GW can make a ruling, and it would be basically if they see as something being to powerful or something they didn't intend. Yet by the exact words of Shroud of Sanguinis and the rules in Warhammer 40k Rules that state rules in Codex's taking precedence, until offically FAQ'd otherwise, stand as both giving infantry and vehicles ( both are units ) a 5+ cover save.

If you still wish to argue by clinging on to page 62 on obscure being the end all of end all. Please open your rule book to page 2 and I strongly suggest you read what is listed as " The Most Important Rule". The Most Important Rule also btw makes a mockery out of RAW being the holy grail. Read all 3 paragraphs and let it really sink in. Then maybe you will understand that those rules are a framework to use and that they can't cover all things that can happen in the game and some common sense will be basically used as well. Thus is why there is so many rules in the 40k rulebook that refer that codex rules take precedence as normal. Thus the codex rule from the Blood Angels on Shroud of Sanguinis giving ALL UNITS a 5+ cover save in 6" take precedence over the Warhammer 40k Rulebook until its FAQ'd as a correction.

Please see the tenets of YMDC - which you have just violated by invoking TMIR.

What you are confusing is where two rules have the *same name*, then the codex vcersion takes precedence. Please dont remvoe the context and try to apply it universally.

In addition the concept you are looking for is "specific > general" - the specific rule, usually the codex, wins out. But not always the codex, otherwise Sweeping Advance wouldnt work.

Page 62 states IF YOU ARE OBSCURED you take the save against hits. Stormcaller gives you a cover save, but not permission to change how that ocver save works. You can keep trying to say it dfoes, but the rules ARE clear in this instance - IF OBSCURED you take the save against hits - are you obscured? no? well guess what that means.

Gwar! wrote:

Volkov wrote:So Gwar! do you allow Bjorns invuln save to have nullify glancing and penetrating hits even though invuln saves only are used against wounds?

How many times does this Strawman have to come up? What I do and what the rules say have no relation to each other.

So how do you play storm caller and how do you play Bjorn's 5+ invul?

I will say this, it's almost downright impossible to play 40k in certain situations by strict RAW. It just doesn't work sometimes.

imweasel wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Volkov wrote:So Gwar! do you allow Bjorns invuln save to have nullify glancing and penetrating hits even though invuln saves only are used against wounds?

How many times does this Strawman have to come up? What I do and what the rules say have no relation to each other.

So how do you play storm caller and how do you play Bjorn's 5+ invul?

I will say this, it's almost downright impossible to play 40k in certain situations by strict RAW. It just doesn't work sometimes.

And what does that have to do with discussing the rules in a completely separate case? Stop trying to change the subject with straw man arguments.

How someone plays and what the rules are have no relation to each other. Please stop the Strawmans, thank you.

Rule for Infantry to gain a cover save or to be considered in cover pg 21

When any part of the target model's body (as defined
on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the
firer, the target model is in cover.

So by this definition, infantry doesn't get a cover save either from Stormcaller or Shroud on Sanguinis. Again its not hard to understand on how these 2 psychic powers work from the way they read.

Check List for Shroud of Sanguinis

1) Psyker made his test to cast the ability?

2) Is the model a Unit?

3) Is the unit with in 6" of the psyker who casted?

4) If the check list of 1, 2, 3 are met the unit gains a cover save and the normal prerequisite for a cover save is waved.

This is so crystal clear I am rather entertained on the notion that it could be seen any other way.

Borris the Blade wrote:Rule for Infantry to gain a cover save or to be considered in cover pg 21

When any part of the target model's body (as defined
on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the
firer, the target model is in cover.

So by this definition, infantry doesn't get a cover save either from Stormcaller or Shroud on Sanguinis. Again its not hard to understand on how these 2 psychic powers work from the way they read.

Check List for Shroud of Sanguinis

1) Psyker made his test to cast the ability?

2) Is the model a Unit?

3) Is the unit with in 6" of the psyker who casted?

4) If the check list of 1, 2, 3 are met the unit gains a cover save and the normal prerequisite for a cover save is waved.

This is so crystal clear I am rather entertained on the notion that it could be seen any other way.

You are entirely missing the thrust of the argument.

YES, the vehicle HAS a Cover Save. And it can use that Cover Save against any and all WOUNDS that it receives.

Let me reiterate that; a Cover Save is good against WOUNDS, and Wounds ONLY. Not Glancing or Penetrating Hits.

The only way a vehicle can receive a save against HITS, is by being Obscured. Does the power Obscure Vehicles? If not, then that Cover Save does exactly gak-all for it.

Borris the Blade wrote:Rule for Infantry to gain a cover save or to be considered in cover pg 21

When any part of the target model's body (as defined
on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the
firer, the target model is in cover.

So by this definition, infantry doesn't get a cover save either from Stormcaller or Shroud on Sanguinis. Again its not hard to understand on how these 2 psychic powers work from the way they read.

Check List for Shroud of Sanguinis

1) Psyker made his test to cast the ability?

2) Is the model a Unit?

3) Is the unit with in 6" of the psyker who casted?

4) If the check list of 1, 2, 3 are met the unit gains a cover save and the normal prerequisite for a cover save is waved.

This is so crystal clear I am rather entertained on the notion that it could be seen any other way.

Wow, just wow. You have 100% entirely missed the entire 3 pages of posts. Wow.

Have /= Use. For the 100th time they HAVE a cover save, however this cover save works against WOUNDS. WOUNDS. WOUNDS. got that?

Sheesh.

IF you are obscured then you are allowed to USE (see, a different word! Not the same as "have"!) this cover save against Hits.

So, NOONE is stating they do not have a cover save - if you would possibly have the courtesy to *read* others arguments and make a vague attempt to comphrehend them this would have been stunnungly clear to you. They HAVE a cover save, just if they want to USE it against HITS instead of wounds they ALSO need to be obscured.

This isnt very difficult.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please see the tenets of YMDC - which you have just violated by invoking TMIR..

Ok close your mouth right here. You have absolutely NO room to talk about rules violations, cause you do it on a daily basis.

Seriously, take a chill pill and stop trying to hide behind a false wall.

Borris has every right to an opinion, and so far has shown a very mature amount of patience in keeping a level head. Stop trying to be a wallfly mod and let the man speak his mind.

jp400 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please see the tenets of YMDC - which you have just violated by invoking TMIR..

Ok close your mouth right here. You have absolutely NO room to talk about rules violations, cause you do it on a daily basis.

Seriously, take a chill pill and stop trying to hide behind a false wall.

I notice no proof with this accusation.
You too also "do it" on a daily basis. I would go further as to say you do it on an hourly basis (or do you? I'M ASKING QUESTIONS!).

It is not a false wall. nosferatu1001 has pointed out time and time again what the rules say. Just because you don't like it you accuse him of breaking the rules when you have just done so.

KEEP IT ON TOPIC - or there will be... trouble?

jp400 wrote:Seriously, take a chill pill and stop trying to hide behind a false wall.

Borris has every right to an opinion, and so far has shown a very mature amount of patience in keeping a level head. Stop trying to be a wallfly mod and let the man speak his mind.

Could you please show me this "false wall"? If you could show me a hole in my argument that would be great. And on topic.

You are entirely missing the thrust of the argument.

YES, the vehicle HAS a Cover Save. And it can use that Cover Save against any and all WOUNDS that it receives.

Let me reiterate that; a Cover Save is good against WOUNDS, and Wounds ONLY. Not Glancing or Penetrating Hits.

The only way a vehicle can receive a save against HITS, is by being Obscured. Does the power Obscure Vehicles? If not, then that Cover Save does exactly gak-all for it.

This statement is also wrong. You are implying that a vehicle has a different save all together and thus would be called something different. Yet its still called a cover save in the Vehicle section under page 62. Let me quote.

Vehicle

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

As you see, a cover save and the word cover save is directly stated, not " vehicle save", not " Penetrate / Glancing save" but a cover save. The word wound is synonomous in game with many other vague classifications that also gain a cover save. Common sense should prevail in many cases but people seem to believe if the rules state that 2 + 2 = 4 and since it doen't state that 3 + 1 = 4 that 3 + 1 = 4 is wrong no matter how logical it may be.

Vehicle

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.

pg 62 WH40K RB

vs

Infantry

When any part of the target model's body (as defined
on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the
firer, the target model is in cover.

pg 21 WH40K RB

Again the only difference that a vehicle on a cover save vs a infantry on a cover save is the portion obscured. The rules for both requires them to be obscured as stated, 50% for vehicles and simply any portion for infantry. Again this is a rule to prevent vehicle abuse like saying my gun barrel on my tank is out of your LoS thus I gain a cover save.


The only way to get the word cover save is to meet the preconditions, obscured for infantry or obscured w/ min 50% in the direction facing the shooter, OR
have an ability that flat out gives it, in which case precondtions normally needed to get a cover save are waved by the ability.

Sorry, that is flat out wrong, as has been explained. Also, please do not insert Strawman arguments, that is pure fail. At no point have I, or anyone, ever said they have a different save, ever.

They HAVE a cover save. Ok? However in the rule you quoted they can only *use* that cover save against Hits IF THEY ARE OBSCUREd. Utility, not possession.

If they are obscured they may USE the cover save against Hits. No other permission exists to use the save against Hits except in that sentence. If it does you have yet to show it in any of your quotes.

NOw, where in the rules for Stormcaller are they counted as Obscured? Theyre not? then IF OBSCURED kicks in, meaning they do NOT have permission to use the cover save against Hits, only wounds. As that is the default state for all cover saves - they save against wounds

Come back to me when vehicles have wounds.

Short version: the rules on page 20/21 only allow cover saves to be taken against wounds. Page 62 states that the only way to takje that cover save against hits is to be obscured. If you are not obscured, you do not have permission to take the save against Hits - nothing at all.

Now, permissive ruleset - show me where you are allowed to USE (underlined so you can see the crux of the argument - not possession but utility) this cover save you have been granted to save hits (penetrating or glancing) in the same way as you would wounds. If you are unable to do so, with a DIRECT quote stating EXAC TLy that, then you have conceded.

Borris the Blade wrote:
This statement is also wrong. You are implying that a vehicle has a different save all together and thus would be called something different. Yet its still called a cover save in the Vehicle section under page 62. Let me quote.

Vehicle

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

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as
infantry – their sheer size and bulk mean they cannot
take advantage of cover as well as infantry and other
smaller, more agile troops.

Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area
terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence.
• Obviously, vehicles cannot go to ground, voluntarily
or otherwise.

If the target is obscured...

For more evidence look at smoke launchers it says they temporralily obscure the tank in smoke thus granting it a 4 plus cover save.
But

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

so personally i think it grants it a cover save if the psyker gives the unit the save but also can be taken from being obscured too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or we could totally miff the rune priest and take a space marinepsker who give a 5+ inuvlerble save everybody wins .

Grey elder - for the 100th time YES they HAVE a cover save. Unfortunately page 20/21 only lets you use a cover save against wounds.

Do vehicles have wounds? No? Then youre stuffed. You have a save that you cannot use.

The ONLY way to get a cover save to work against Hits as well as wounds is to be obscured, or to have a codex special rule that says so. Stormcaller does not do this, so again, you're stuffed - you can only use the save against wounds.

Can people please read the argument and respond to it? It's not that difficult: a vehicle having a save is not the same as having permission to sue that save against Hits. That permission only, so far, comes frmo page 62 and *requires* that you are obscured. So yes, stormcaller gives the vehicle a cover save, it just can only use it against the wounds it doesnt have.

Lastly: the same issue occurs with invulnerable saves, in that they also only save against wounds. Here there isnt even a BRB mechanism for transforming a wounds-only invulnerable save into one that works agisnt hits, it needs to be specified in the unit entry - like it does for Bjorn.

Boris the Blade FTW... Very well proposed argument. Backed by rules and logic. You convinced, me whereas the opposing argument seems to fall short.

Beast wrote:Boris the Blade FTW... Very well proposed argument. Backed by rules and logic. You convinced, me whereas the opposing argument seems to fall short.

Except it ignores the rule "If obscured...." which is the only method by whcih a cover save that works against wounds can be used to save against Hits.

So, apart from the massive flaw in the argument where it ignores the critical rule that has been mentioned 100 times now it is backed by rules.

So would you care to explain how his argument convinced you to ignore the lines of text specifically saying that a vehicle must be obscured to use it's cover save?

Once again I would like someone to address how they ignore "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"
a) the specific reference to glance/pen
b) permission to use cover saves for this type of save
c) the whole starting line of in the vehicle is obscured do this.

Once again having is not the same as being allowed to use, see armour saves vs invulnerable saves so a simple example.

Please try and address the argument and less of these 'feelings' (argumentum ad hominem), ignoring the support of the rules (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and I'm pretty sure the Fallacy of False Cause more specifically, post hoc ergo propter hoc. But I'm just some dumb guy, with 'tops' reading comprihension.

Gwar is right

Not that I agree with that in actual gameplay...

Personally, you should go wild and bring along a dry ice machine complete with suspended watering can to provide rain and an induction fan to create wind. Then direct your swirling maelstrom at your board and claim your vehicle is obscured

lunarman wrote:Gwar is right

Not that I agree with that in actual gameplay...

Personally, you should go wild and bring along a dry ice machine complete with suspended watering can to provide rain and an induction fan to create wind. Then direct your swirling maelstrom at your board and claim your vehicle is obscured

Just to point out, nosferatu1001 is the one who should be credited, all I did was back him up on the RaW

I'm still waiting to hear the shortcoming of the argument - if I or others have missed something, it would be good to know, as it would simplify a lot.

Seems water tight to me, but im close to it. And also mildly frustrated everytime a new posters response is "but they have a save! you're saying they dont!" when that is the exact opposite of the argument...

Except it ignores the rule "If obscured...." which is the only method by whcih a cover save that works against wounds can be used to save against Hits.

So, apart from the massive flaw in the argument where it ignores the critical rule that has been mentioned 100 times now it is backed by rules.

Ah, the same rule I posted and quoted earlier that infantry needs to be obscured also to gain a cover save. So by your logic, infantry still gains the cover save despite not being obscured while a Vehicle doesn't get a cover save as the definitions of being obscured work completly different ( not just talking about the 50% )? One speaks of "strawman rules" but yet its not me who is grasping.

Once again I would like someone to address how they ignore "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"
a) the specific reference to glance/pen exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a
wound"
b) permission to use cover saves for this type of save No permission is needed only under normal circumstances needs a basic prereq of 50% obscured in the direction of the fired shot
c) the whole starting line of in the vehicle is obscured do this. Again under normal circumstances which are waved or replaced by the ability itself. Just like infantry

That is indeed the rules I quoted under normal circumstances that a vehicle gains a save. What you did fail to mention was my comparison that the rules for infantry also need to be obscured ( though not by 50%) to gain a cover save. Since you keep defacto'ing to the obscured rule, then how does the ability get around the obscured rule for infantry but not vehicles? There is never a question about infantry getting the cover save though by Raw they aren't obscured as the rules state but the rules for the ability flat out gives it to them, thus waving the normal pre-requisites for qualifying for a cover save.

Too many people try to play with Raw and their interpetations of it. There is a post showing examples of how flawed it is ( if used in strict interpetations of it ), where common sense and logic would quickly prevail. There is also a thread that is several pages long on arguing, due to Raw on Eldrad in hand to hand combat that should be so simple to work out but arguements like "Raw doesn't cover a model with 3 weapons so he doesn't get an attack" gives Raw little credability to use on a word for word basis but should be based on the intent. IF Raw says 2 + 2 = 4 but says nothing about 3 + 1 = 4 or 2 x 2 = 4 then only 2 + 2 = 4? Again common sense and logic

Borris the Blade wrote:
Ah, the same rule I posted and quoted earlier that infantry needs to be obscured also to gain a cover save. So by your logic, infantry still gains the cover save despite not being obscured while a Vehicle doesn't get a cover save as the definitions of being obscured work completly different ( not just talking about the 50% )? One speaks of "strawman rules" but yet its not me who is grasping.

That is indeed the rules I quoted under normal circumstances that a vehicle gains a save. What you did fail to mention was my comparison that the rules for infantry also need to be obscured ( though not by 50%) to gain a cover save. Since you keep defacto'ing to the obscured rule, then how does the ability get around the obscured rule for infantry but not vehicles?

Seriously, seriously, what part of the difference between 'GAIN' and 'USE' is so difficult to get here?

INFANTRY GAIN A COVER SAVE. THEY CAN USE A COVER SAVE AGAINST WOUNDS WITHOUT BEING OBSCURED, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF HAVING A COVER SAVING THROW AND THE SAVING THROW RULES.

VEHICLES GAINS A COVER SAVE. IN ORDER TO USE THE SAVE AGAINST GLANCING AND PENETRATING HITS, A SPECIAL USE GRANTED ONLY BY A DIFFERENT RULE, THEY MUST BE OBSCURED.

Repeatedly pointing out that the vehicle has a cover save or that infantry normally gain a cover save through obscurement has nothing to do with the argument. You are quite simply wrong in the RAW, and are arguing points that have no application here.

Ah, so no permission is needed?
Awesome. I get 2+ Cover saves in the open then, as I don't need permission to have or use them!

Personally, you should go wild and bring along a dry ice machine complete with suspended watering can to provide rain and an induction fan to create wind. Then direct your swirling maelstrom at your board and claim your vehicle is obscured

That would be cool to do if I could only figure out how to keep it in a 12" diameter and 6" while not effecting the terrain. Kinda like everyone should bring enough cotton cover 50% of their vehicle from every angle when they pop smoke but majority never brings it and those that do rarely if ever to provide enough of it to properly obscure it. Yet I find a marker chip or simply claiming it by my opponents to be enough for me to play the game. Then again I could take your sarcasm and say that my opponent needs to build a fire and provide enough smoke on the model that is claiming it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ah, so no permission is needed?
Awesome. I get 2+ Cover saves in the open then, as I don't need permission to have or use them!

Do you have an ability that gives you this? If so congrats

Borris the Blade wrote:provide enough smoke on the model that is claiming it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ah, so no permission is needed?
Awesome. I get 2+ Cover saves in the open then, as I don't need permission to have or use them!

Do you have an ability that gives you this? If so congrats

Do you have an ability that grants you the obscured stats?
If so congrats you can use you cover save. If you don't have a great time enjoying your save that you can't use.

sheesh see the KFF entry if you're still not convinced.

So let me get this clear. If I want to get in on this argument I need to just bash my head uselessly against a wall? Awesome. *bashes away*

Now on topic. Yes they get a cover save but can't use it. The 50% of a unit is ignored by the special rules in the codex. Meaning that both tanks and infantry gain/have a cover save. YAY! I hope everyone is following this highly complex explanation.

Now that my units have their cover save they are going to be shot at =O My infantry take some WOUNDS, and my vehicles take some glancing and penetrating HITS. Now which one of you wants to tell me which one gets to USE their cover save that lets them save against WOUNDS? Is it the infantry that took WOUNDS, or the vehicles that took HITS?

End of argument.

Oshova

Boris the Blade

What part of "have" is not the same as "use" do you find so difficult?

Vehicles near Stormcaller HAVE A COVER SAVE. I accept this. We ALL accept this. Noone denies this, therefore your entire argument that we are denying this is false. OK?

This cover save works againdst WOUNDS ONLY, as the cover save rules state this. Again, this is not debateable - please read page 20/21. PLEASE actually read this.,

Got that? So, now what is the ONLY way you are given PERMISSION to use a save against HITS? Page 62. What is the prerequisite for USING the save? Being obscured.

For the last time bvefore you are reported for trolling: Having a save is not the same as having permission to use the save against Hits. Answer THIS argument or concede defeat.

Meh.

This has been done to death before.

The rules on page 62 point out exceptions to the normal cover rules, and represent the "normal" way a vehicle receives cover.
Those exceptions are:
50% of facing needs to be hidden.
Area terrain does not obscure vehicles.
Vehicles cannot go to ground.

The use of the term 'obscured' refers to a vehicles ability to claim to be in cover

"At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle... needs to be hidden... for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured."

That's it. If a vehicle can claim to be "in cover" it is obscured.

What defines if something is "in cover" ?

"...units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw." (p21)

So, if a model has a cover saving throw, it is in or behind cover.

If a vehicle has a cover saving throw, it is in or behind cover. If a vehicle is in or behind cover, it is obscured.

kartofelkopf wrote:Meh.

This has been done to death before.

The rules on page 62 point out exceptions to the normal cover rules, and represent the "normal" way a vehicle receives cover.
Those exceptions are:
50% of facing needs to be hidden.
Area terrain does not obscure vehicles.
Vehicles cannot go to ground.

The use of the term 'obscured' refers to a vehicles ability to claim to be in cover

"At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle... needs to be hidden... for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured."

That's it. If a vehicle can claim to be "in cover" it is obscured.

What defines if something is "in cover" ?

"...units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw." (p21)

So, if a model has a cover saving throw, it is in or behind cover.

If a vehicle has a cover saving throw, it is in or behind cover. If a vehicle is in or behind cover, it is obscured.

There are so many incorrect or unsupported leaps here that I'm not even sure where to start.

Pointing out the glaring logical fallacy at the end (Units in cover get a cover save, therefore all units with a cover save must be in cover) will have to suffice for now....

Or the part where you claim obscured must refer to being 'in cover', despite it referring to the 50% requirement (as implied by the sentence structure and as clarified by the next bullet point "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence.")...

Or... you know what, it's not worth it. You're wrong, by clear RAW, just stop.

Interesting as "Obscured status" is a special condition that allows a vehicle to roll a corrosponding save against glancing or penetrating hits.

Otherwise being in area terrain would allow a vehicle to take a cover save as the arae terrain would still confer a save despite the vehicle not fitting the status of obsured.

Also interesting that anytime a vehicle is meant to be endowed with a cover save it specifically mentiong 'is obscured' 'counts as obscured' if fact in the case of KFF this save conferred is even better than the one given to infantry.

Well this looks like its going no where...


The way I see it you are either in the RAW group, and you say Bjorn can't use his invuln and cover saves without 50% hidden are useless.


Or


You are in the RAI group and glancing / Pen are synonymous with wound. Bjorn's inv and storm caller / Sanguine thing works on vehicles.



No group is going to give so why not make a poll to see how the majority play and call it a day.

Gorkamorka wrote:


Pointing out the glaring logical fallacy at the end (Units in cover get a cover save, therefore all units with a cover save must be in cover) will have to suffice for now.

Or the part where you claim obscured must refer to being 'in cover', despite it referring to the 50% requirement as clarified by the next bullet point.

Then what defines a unit as being in cover?

The only time, in the entire rulebook, a unit is referred to as being in cover, is in regards to receiving a cover save.

I assume you think that's a tautology, but I think it's just a reflexive statement. If a unit is in cover, it has a cover save. If a unit has a cover save, it is in cover.

If this is incorrect, please direct us, in the BRB, to the page where it defines when a unit is in cover differently.

ChrisCP

The bullet point I quoted specifically prohibits that. In any event, the rules on p62 are the NORMAL rules for vehicle getting cover saves, just as the rules on 21 are the NORMAL rules for infantry receiving cover saves. Clearly, a psychic power is beyond the scope of the NORMAL rules for receiving a cover save.

And, as much as the "RAW" purists complained about strawmen earlier, they love to bring up the KFF, an upgrade from the previous edition when vehicles never took cover saves. It needed to specify the difference as it was meant to be 4e and 5e compatible.

Clthomps wrote:Well this looks like its going no where...


The way I see it you are either in the RAW group, and you say Bjorn can't use his invuln and cover saves without 50% hidden are useless.

Oh hey, a poisoning the well logical fallacy.

Why can't I be in the 'RAW group, which has a better claim to the RAI in this case as the rules to handle this situation are basic and clearly laid out, work perfectly fine, have not been clarified further by GW, and several examples that prove the point exist'?

Because to make an unbiased poll would be very dificult, as there is so much evidence for the "Is said vehicle conferred obscured status, either through wargear or coveraged by area terrain from the POV of firer > If yes permission to use cover save granted > If no then no" And to present the other side of the argument would involve ingnoreing swathes of text.

Gorkamorka wrote:
Or the part where you claim obscured must refer to being 'in cover', despite it referring to the 50% requirement as clarified by the next bullet point.

Actually, just quoting the rules. It specifies that 50% of the vehicle needs to be hidden in order to claim to be in cover, which is called obscurement. Psychic powers under discussion skip the NORMAL cover step and allows a unit to claim to be in cover, even if it is not hidden (this is true for infantry and for vehicles).

kartofelkopf wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
Or the part where you claim obscured must refer to being 'in cover', despite it referring to the 50% requirement as clarified by the next bullet point.

Actually, just quoting the rules. It specifies that 50% of the vehicle needs to be hidden in order to claim to be in cover, which is called obscurement. Psychic powers under discussion skip the NORMAL cover step and allows a unit to claim to be in cover, even if it is not hidden (this is true for infantry and for vehicles).

Except that they do not provide the unit with the ability to claim to be in cover. They provide only a cover saving throw, which just happens to be a result of being in cover.
Having a cover save and actually being in cover are not the same thing. Being in cover provides a cover saving throw, a cover saving throw does not provide being in cover.

Gorkamorka wrote:
Having a cover save and actually being in cover are not the same thing.

So you keep saying....

Please, quote the text from the BRB that defines when a unit is in cover. The only definition I've found that defines when a unit is in cover is on page 21.

"...units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw."

As it stands, the only way to know if a unit is "in cover" is if it has a cover saving throw.

The only way a vehicle can count as obscured is if it can "claim to be in cover." Usually, this means being 50% hidden by terrain or intervening models. But, if the only defining characteristic of "being in cover" is "having a cover saving throw" then ANY time a vehicle HAS a saving throw, it is, by definition, also obscured.

Like I said, please, if there's a definition in the book of when a unit is in cover, present it. I'd love to have a more formal definition than the one presented.

kartofelkopf wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
Having a cover save and actually being in cover are not the same thing.

So you keep saying....

Please, quote the text from the BRB that defines when a unit is in cover. The only definition I've found that defines when a unit is in cover is on page 21.

"...units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw."

As it stands, the only way to know if a unit is "in cover" is if it has a cover saving throw.

And, as I've pointed out multiple times, that sentence does not say that a cover saving throw is the same as being in cover. It does not say that units with a cover saving throw are always in cover. It says that units that are in cover receive a cover saving throw.
This quote you keep quoting lends absolutely no credence to your strange claim.

Being 'in cover' is a well defined game term with several paragraphs of definition and exceptions. The claim that the only way to tell if a unit is in cover is to check its saving throw... when normally in order to know if it gains that saving throw you have to determine whether the unit is in cover using the rules for being in cover first... is absolutely ludicrous and borderline trolling. The claim that gaining a cover saving throw brings with it the benefit of being obscured, which is equally unsupported in the ruleset, is equally ludicrous.

Having a cover saving throw, another defined game term, in this case is either a result of the condition or a part of the condition... it by definition cannot be the same as the condition itself and is never defined as being the same anywhere in the ruleset.

kartofelkopf wrote:
And, as much as the "RAW" purists complained about strawmen earlier, they love to bring up the KFF, an upgrade from the previous edition when vehicles never took cover saves. It needed to specify the difference as it was meant to be 4e and 5e compatible.

Man... I really wish there was a 5th ed equivilent right in the BRB that has also been mentioned. If only it was given as an example right there on the same page as the obscured vehicle rules.
Too bad smoke launchers don't exist, or my point would have a perfect example that blew a hole right through your argument, right?

Oh please

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

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as
infantry – their sheer size and bulk mean they cannot
take advantage of cover as well as infantry and other
smaller, more agile troops.

Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area
terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence.
• Obviously, vehicles cannot go to ground, voluntarily
or otherwise.

If the target is obscured...

Being "in cover" is purely functional in all its uses in the BRB. P21 defines a unit as in cover when it is claiming a cover save, and goes on to define types of cover PURELY in terms of the save they grant.

Also, watch it with the claims of trolling. I keep quoting the BRB... you keep repeating the same claims with no citations. One of these is the directed manner in which a YMDC discussion is supposed to proceed. (PROTIP: it's the debate method I'm using)

Oh please again see above your post, and you keep missing the point that, infantry are given permission to use cover saves agains shooting attack, for example they are explictyly forbidden to use them against a sweeping advance (probably in case so sneaky bugged said 'but you're shooting them in the back as they run')

And a vehicle is told they may only take a cover save ('take a cover save' as in pick up the die and try to roll = or higher than said value') if they are obscured, either through wargear "but will
count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting
phase, receiving a 4+ cover save." or blocking of LOS


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haha wait what your using a 'Protip' method of debate? That's new

kartofelkopf wrote:
Also, watch it with the claims of trolling. I keep quoting the BRB... you keep repeating the same claims with no citations. One of these is the directed manner in which a YMDC discussion is supposed to proceed. (PROTIP: it's the debate method I'm using)

I wasn't aware "Quote rules and then repeatedly insist upon claims that they don't support" was debating, and wasn't trolling.

Seriously.
If A, then B
thus
If B, then A
Is so basically logically flawed that I cannot believe it forms the entire basis of your argument.

My bad, I guess. I'll bow out and let other people tell you you're wrong in the morning.

ChrisCP wrote:Oh please again see above your post, and you keep missing the point that, infantry are given permission to use cover saves agains shooting attack...
snip
And a vehicle is told they may only take a cover save ('take a cover save' as in pick up the die and try to roll = or higher than said value') if they are obscured, either through wargear "but will
count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting
phase, receiving a 4+ cover save." or blocking of LOS

Well, what the rules ACTUALLY say, is that if a vehicle "claim[s] to be in cover . . . the vehicle is said to be obscured."

Obscured is solely defined as being able to claim a cover save. NORMALLY, this requires 50% of the vehicle to be hidden from a firer's LOS. But, if a vehicle is given a cover save, it can claim to be in cover, and "the vehicle is said to be obscured."

So, let's go down the steps.

1) 50% of a vehicles facing is hidden
2) the vehicle claims to be in cover ("the vehicle is said to be obscured")
3) if the vehicle suffers a Pen or Glance, it may take a cover save

Those are the NORMAL rules for a vehicle in cover.

A psychic power grants a cover save outright... skipping step 1. Going to step 2, we see that, if a vehicle can claim to be in cover, it is obscured. Ergo, step 3-- it takes a cover save.

Mmm he just keeps missing the heart.
Can see playing against this frame of mind going like this, "okay so that's 2 glancing and 3 pen."
"Fine."
"Okay rolling on the damage table, okay if I use black die for pen and do them all at once?" (That's actually a pet peeve of mine)
"Fine."
".. 2 weapon destroyed, 3 wrecked and 1 immbilised"
"Okay I'll take my cover saves"
"Wait what?"
"Cover saves"
"Okay... Firstly) Why are you obscured?"
"Doesn't matter I have a 5+"
"But when did you get permission to take that save?"
"Huh?... I don't need it..."
"Okay but what about the line in the rule book that says 'If the target is obscured'."
"Doesn't matter I have a 5+"
"Well to prevent myself being tar-pitted by this argument I'll direct your attention to the fact that you must that saves for glance and pen before I roll on the damage table."
"Huh?...Wait...What? What are you trying to pull Mr. TFG?"

So, I quote rules, and you present an ad-hom and strawman rolled into one.

Kudos to you, sir.

kartofelkopf wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Oh please again see above your post, and you keep missing the point that, infantry are given permission to use cover saves agains shooting attack...
snip
And a vehicle is told they may only take a cover save ('take a cover save' as in pick up the die and try to roll = or higher than said value') if they are obscured, either through wargear "but will
count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting
phase, receiving a 4+ cover save." or blocking of LOS

Well, what the rules ACTUALLY say, is that if a vehicle "claim[s] to be in cover . . . the vehicle is said to be obscured."

Obscured is solely defined as being able to claim a cover save. NORMALLY, this requires 50% of the vehicle to be hidden from a firer's LOS. But, if a vehicle is given a cover save, it can claim to be in cover, and "the vehicle is said to be obscured."

So, let's go down the steps.

1) 50% of a vehicles facing is hidden
2) the vehicle claims to be in cover ("the vehicle is said to be obscured")
3) if the vehicle suffers a Pen or Glance, it may take a cover save

Those are the NORMAL rules for a vehicle in cover.

A psychic power grants a cover save outright... skipping step 1. Going to step 2, we see that, if a vehicle can claim to be in cover, it is obscured. Ergo, step 3-- it takes a cover save.

Okay firstly that only part of what the rule actually say, you keep not addressing the line that proves our point, secondly it's never defined as "Obscured is solely defined as being able to claim a cover save" (solely? well your defeating your own earlierpoints about infantry here but anyway) it's a 'state' that means "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kartofelkopf wrote:So, I quote rules, and you present an ad-hom and strawman rolled into one.

Kudos to you, sir.

Sorry yes I should have kept my imagination to PMs.. you seriously think that was me presenting an argument? No me presenting an argument is the thing you keep balking at and avoiding by selectivley quoting and cahinging you criterias for satisfaction, something we haven't had to do with our argument - ever.

kartofelkopf wrote:A psychic power grants a cover save outright... skipping step 1. Going to step 2, we see that, if a vehicle can claim to be in cover, it is obscured. Ergo, step 3-- it takes a cover save.

Except your argument relies on the fallacy that a unit with a cover save is therefore obscured, when that is the simplest logical fallacy example ever. (A-> B then B->A )

You are told IF you are obscured then you get a cover save. This does *not* mean that you are obscured if you have a cover save - and thus your argument fails.

You have utterly failed to address that you must be obscured to use a cover save against Hits instead of against Wounds. Page 62 is the only permission given to use the page 20/21 cover save, whcih ONLY WORKS ON WOUNDS, against Hits.

Unless you can show *permission* otherwise, which you have singularly failed to do, then page 62 defeats you everytime.

Stop with the logical fallacies and actually present aclear arugment, mkay? And "protip"? You? lol!

1. When is a unit said to be in cover?

2. If a unit is granted a cover save by a psychic power, is it "in cover;" if not, why not?

3. Vehicles follow the normal rules for cover, with some exceptions. The main one being, 50% of the facing needs to be hidden "for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured." (p62) So, a vehicle that can claim to be in cover is said to be obscured.

Please, answer me directly-- when is a unit said to be in cover?

Colloquially, in a game, one might say "My tac marines are in cover" and then roll a cover save. "In cover" is functionally equivalent to "has a cover save." Cover is even defined by what type of save it grants. We like to have pretty terrain, but, at the end of the day, we could easily play on pieces of cut-out paper that said "4+" or "5+" on them, and still recognize them as area terrain, or fold them for 3D terrain. The ONLY time "in cover" is defined is in terms of having a cover save. There are different criteria for when a unit meets the threshold for being in cover, but, functionally, any time a unit is in cover it is because they have a cover save.

Going to lock this now, we're going round and round in circles and getting nowhere.

..much LFC's season, alas...

.. now look what you've made me do !

Users are reminded of the forum rules, especially with regards to politeness to other users : this is just toy soldiers folks. IF you're really that keen on getting hot and heavy then perhaps a career in the legal sphere beckons..

.. as long as your parents weren't married when they birthed you anyway.