Just a very quick check, does this ability work on vehicles? I'm not debating the issue, I know by now there must be a strong answer one way or the other.. Just want to check.

Thanks

By RaW it gives Vehicles a cover save that they can only use against wounds. The only situation in the rules that allows a Vehicle to take a cover save against penetrating and glancing hits is if the Vehicle is obscured and Stormcaller doe snot grant the status "obscured".

However by the rules it is pretty clear that as you get the cover save you know that as you are a vehicle you'll be taking it against glancing and penetrating hits rather than wounds.

Don't listen to Flingitnow, for some reason he thinks the RaW isn't the rules.

Storm Called does not work for vehicles. It's that simple. it gives the vehicle a 5+ cover save, but this save can only be used against wounds, which a vehicle does not have.

/facepalm @ RaW fanatics

@Phish Skills; the rules are the only way we can garner facts about the writer's intentions; it's wise to stick to them as closely as possible. What we want the rules to be and what they are rarely share common ground.

As much as I wish Gwar! was wrong (stormcaller working for vehicles makes perfect sense to me), his logic is hard to refute; it's all there in pretty plain black and white that it does not function. Stormcaller's only real use now is to give cover to a unit screening the rune priest's rhino/raider, or to protect the space wolves (poorly) from being hosed by AP3- shooting after losing their rhino.

The SW FAQ changed the wording of Stormcaller from protecting squads to protecting units. So whatever can be defined as a unit is protected. I believe the intention to do this was for storm caller to protect vehicles.

If only, Hobbs. The primary issue is that yes, it does grant a cover save of 5+ to your vehicles. The problem is, cover saves are only ever taken against wounds. Now, the exception to this obviously is vehicles, who may take a cover save against penetrating hits or glancing hits only if they are also obscured. The rulebook's wording on this is very specific and clear. Every other instance in which a vehicle gains a cover save without 50% of it's facing being covered (skimmers moving fast, smoke launchers, etc.) all also cause the vehicle to be obscured, allowing the save to be taken. As has been stated above, the tanks have a cover save but are not allowed to use it due to not being obscured at least 50%.

The wording was changed, in my opinion, because the word squad doesn't show up anywhere else in the codex besides fluff, whereas units does. They were trying to improve consistency in terminology; Something GW often falls painfully short on.

General Hobbs wrote:The SW FAQ changed the wording of Stormcaller from protecting squads to protecting units. So whatever can be defined as a unit is protected. I believe the intention to do this was for storm caller to protect vehicles.

You may believe this - however the main reason it was changed is that Squads did not exist in the codex, therefore the power worked on nobody.

there is nothing that states the intention is it should work on everything, and if it did ALL they needed to do was add a line stating it.

Gwar! wrote:Don't listen to Flingitnow, for some reason he thinks the RaW isn't the rules.

Storm Called does not work for vehicles. It's that simple. it gives the vehicle a 5+ cover save, but this save can only be used against wounds, which a vehicle does not have.

Gwar, I have read your FAQs posted here before I agree with almost every ruling and interpretation you have posted. However, in this one instance I will attempt to disagree with you. (Don't beat me down too hard with your response)

Codex Space Wolves page 37
"At the beginning of his turn, the Rune Priest may summon a storm of psychic power that is centered around himself. Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly squads within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save."

The Space Wolf FAQ then states.
"Page 37, Storm Caller. Change:
‘he and all friendly squads within 6" benefit from
a 5+ cover save’
to
‘he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a
5+ cover save’"

A vehicle is a unit and therefore a 5+ cover save is conferred to the vehicle. Next we look at page 62 of the BRB to see how a cover save for a vehicle works.
Page 62 of BRB
"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 (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table."

This is a very clear definition of how a cover save is applied to a vehicle. Being obscured grants you a cover save. Then you see what kind of cover save it is and roll for it. Storm caller grants you a cover save. It is locked in at a 5+ and you roll for it. Nothing in the codex entry for the power says the save is only for wounds. Additionally, the BRB does not say you must be obscured to claim a cover save, only that being obscured grants you one and then details how cover saves work for vehicles.

Note:
The rule book does say you need to be 50% obscured to claim to be in cover and that in this case, you count as being obscured. The storm caller power does not state that the unit may claim to be in cover or obscured. Instead, it automatically grants the 5+ save, bypassing the obscured status completely.

So, I may have missed something but the RAW seems to indicate that the power does in fact work on vehicles. In addition, if storm caller was not intended to function on vehicle units, then no FAQ would have been necessary as "squad" would have covered all non-vehicle units in the codex. Or, they could have made the FAQ ruling to be "non-vehicle units" instead of choosing to just use "units". It appears to me that there is a RAW arguement for the power to work on vehicles and that the RAI for the power is in favor of it functioning on vehicles. I know this isn't relevant, but it should also be noted that it did function on vehicles in the previous version of the codex so it is basically an unchanged power from the last codex. If I am wrong I would like to know where my reasoning went awry, since this is how we have been playing the power in our area.

Thanks

And as I have said, the Power says they have a 5+ cover save. It does not grant Obscured. Note the first line: "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

A Vehicle that is not obscured and has a cover save may only use that cover save against wounds.

Vehicles do not have wounds.

Gwar! wrote:And as I have said, the Power says they have a 5+ cover save. It does not grant Obscured. Note the first line: "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

A Vehicle that is not obscured and has a cover save may only use that cover save against wounds.

Vehicles do not have wounds.

There are two sentences in the rule book for vehicles and cover saves. The first details how a vehicle can receive a cover save.

"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 (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). "

I agree with you 100% that this sentence does not apply because the vehicle is not obscured. It details that obscured vehicles are granted a cover save exactly like a non-vehicle model would have against a wound.

So far we are in agreement, the next sentence is where we seem to differ on our RAW reading.

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

This is a completely separate sentence from the first one. It simply states that when a vehicle passes a cover save, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the damage table. This appears to be very clear RAW as to how cover saves work for vehicles. The condition of being obscured from the first sentence only grants the cover save to the vehicle. The second sentence that has no obscured restriction is what tells you how to apply a cover save to a vehicle.

That is how my group sees it and plays the storm caller power. Does this explain my reasoning better?

Thanks

wolvesoffenris wrote:That is how my group sees it and plays the storm caller power. Does this explain my reasoning better?

No, not really, since your Group is ignoring the rules.

The problem is the language in the second sentence refers specifically to the cover save granted by being obscured. It does not refer to cover saves in general.

If the rules said 'when a vehicle takes a cover save it can ignore the glancing or penetrating hit the save is taken against' then the vehicle would be able to do so.

Heck even if it said 'If a cover save is passed by a vehicle...' Instead is refers specifically to 'the cover save.'

Can i try to simplify?

Storm Called grants 5+ cover save, that is all.

Obscured status occurs if the vehicle is hull down behind an obstacle or by a special rule that grants obscured status. (read tau disruption pods)

Storm called does not grant the obscured status to any unit within range.

Storm called also does not place an object onto the table to enable the vehicle to be hull down/obscured.

Vehicles can only take a cover save if they are obscured.

This is a very clear definition of how a cover save is applied to a vehicle. Being obscured grants you a cover save

As Gwar is saying, and because storm called specifically does not state that it obscures the target, the vehicle does not get that cover save.

Actually what gwar (not to sinlge you out mate, you are the only Nic I remember on that side) said is 1: cover saves can ony be taken for wounds, which vehicles don't have. Ergo vehicles can't take saves. (this is wrong from the BBB wording on vehicles and cover saves via obscurement).
Later the RaW side moved from that clearly wrong stance to: only if a vehicle is obscured can it make a save. This is also wrong, as that side is subconsiously adding the term "only" in front of the rules which begin "If a vehicle is obscured..." clearly if a vehicle is obscured it gets a save, but to assume that is the only situation by adding to the RAW definition seems a bit mute when you are clinging to it like a creationist to the old testiment

Kiwidru wrote:Actually what gwar (not to sinlge you out mate, you are the only Nic I remember on that side) said is 1: cover saves can ony be taken for wounds, which vehicles don't have. Ergo vehicles can't take saves. (this is wrong from the BBB wording on vehicles and cover saves via obscurement)

Sorry, but this is NOT What we were saying, at all.

Vehicles can take cover saves "if the target is obscured". Never, at any other time, can a vehicle take cover saves vs Glancing or Pen Hits. If he has a cover save AND is obscured, yay, he can use it. If he has a cover save and IS NOT obscured, then he cannot use it, as that cover save only works for wounds.

sorry kiwidru...

let me quote qwar from several posts prior:

And as I have said, the Power says they have a 5+ cover save. It does not grant Obscured. Note the first line: "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

RAW definition is not moot, its rules, the definition states, if it is obscured, it gets to use a cover save. No other cases.

It doesn't state "If the target is obscured, or otherwise granted a cover save, and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

You can choose to play it another way if your gaming group wants to ignore the explicitness of the statement, but i would expect that in tournie it would be played as RAW.

I think in this instance it's pretty clear that it should NOT affect vehicles. As Gwar! said, it does not grant the vehicle "Obscured" status and thus does nothing for the vehicle (the cover save is for wounds only).

If it specified giving vehicles a cover save, then I would attribute it to poor writing, but understand that RAI it should give vehicles a save. HOWEVER, this is not the case, therefore I must say that this doesn't work for vehicles, and there's no way to know if RAI it should or should not.

Whew, y'all are quick. I get that If a vehicle is obscured it gets a save, no arguements. However, I think the Raw side is making subcoscious additions and assumptions, which defeats the moral highground of the hardliner. Nowhere does it say that is the only possible situation that a vehicle could get a save, it just gives the most anticipated situation involving terrain.
My thought process is along the lines of this: If you agree with me you are smart and understand logic. It seems that the Raw side would claim the statement said: "only if you agree with me are you smart and understand logic". When ironically, we know that you can be smart and understand logic, while disagreeing with me. So everyone who agrees with me is smart, but the possibility to be smart is not solely reliant on you sharing my views. Just like every obscured vehicle gets a cover save, the the possibility for a save is not solely reliant on being obscured. (in this case from a spell)
Edit: on Iphone, hard to type

Kiwidru wrote:Nowhere does it say that is the only possible situation that a vehicle could get a save,

Nowhere does it say I can't take a hammer to your kneecaps whenever I fail a save either.

The Rules tell you what you CAN do, not what you can't. The rules say you can take a cover save vs Pen or Glance if the vehicle is Obscured. It does not allow you to take them at any other time.

I think you will find that the RAW side is reading the rules as they are written and interpreting them to be inclusive rules.

So when dealing with cover saves for vehicles, which is a separate subset of rules, where it says 'cover saves are allowed when the vehicle is obscured' and nothing else, then by inclusive rules you can include that as a thing that can be done, but if it isnt written on the page then its not allowed because you cant include it.

the argument is not "you are wrong cause you dont agree with us" it is "you are wrong because you are not reading the writing on the page" or possibly "your interpretation of what is written is wrong"

At no point have we said you are wrong because we personally disagree with your religious, sexual or political position. We are not saying you are wrong because you have a different racial background, which is what you are attempting to allude to, we dont know any of that, we are saying you are wrong, because at no point does it say you can do the task you are aiming to do.

Slow your roll tiny, you are digging holes for yourself. If the rules only tell you what you can do, and not what you can't (even though logically, those are two sides of the same line) then the sw rules clearly say you can get a save on all units (not all non vehicles), and since like you said, the rules only say what you can do, you can use it on any unit within range. You can save if obscured, check. You can save if it tell you you can, check. No rules contradictions, check. I'm not the one pulling cannots out of the magic hat

You can save if it tell you you can, check.

Please quote, with page number, the line that states in regards to vehicle cover saves that cover saves can be granted to a vehicle by anything other than obscured status?

I'm not a magician, i'm looking for evidence that something exists.

You've decided to get involved with a question and don't like the answer you have been given. You have a choice now. Go down the rabbit hole and attempt to understand why the answer has been given as it has, or just ignore it because it doesn't suit your reality. If you want to argue it, provide evidence of the argument as opposed to claiming someone is making stuff up because you cant support your argument with written fact.

Codex Space Wolves page 37
"At the beginning of his turn, the Rune Priest may summon a storm of psychic power that is centered around himself. Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly squads within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save."
With FaQ edit from squads to units, which vehicles are.

In return I would like the page number where it says that a coversave cannot be taken unless a vehicle is obscured. (note that is different than saying if a vehicle is obscured it gets a save)

Okay we have Tau Disrution pods, the famous Ork Kustom Force Field and Smurfs Smoke, all of which specifically tell us that the vehicle is obscured.

Yet for an entry which doesn't have this line in it you want the benifit? Right....

Kiwidru wrote:
In return I would like the page number where it says that a coversave cannot be taken unless a vehicle is obscured. (note that is different than saying if a vehicle is obscured it gets a save)

That is not how the burden of proof of a permissive ruleset works.

There are rules for cover saving throws, they are detailed on pages 21-24.
There are rules for what allows a vehicle to use a cover saving throw in a different way, and they specifically require obscured status.

YOU have to prove that you have permission to do something, we do not have to prove that you cannot.

No, actualloy, it isnt

The rules are permissive. Cover Saves save against WOunds, page 21.

If you want them to save against hits, you follow page 62, which starts "If you are obscrued"

So you parse the sentence and see if you can answer "true" to the If statement. If you can answer "true", you are allowed to convert your save to one that works on Hits.

if you answer false - well, sorry, there is no "false" - you dont get to do anything. You cannot use your save against hits, as you have no permission to do so. Stormcaller does NOT make you obscured, and therefore the Save you HAVE only works against Wounds.

The rules are permissive, if you are seriuously stating they are not, then I win on a 2+, as nowhere does it state I can't.

I don't want anything, I don't play sw. Nor would I care on the table one way or another. Those 3 give obscure, which is why they arnt in discussion, but they have no bearing on the crux of the discussion; the raw states they get a save without being obscured. no where does it say you MUST be obscured to use a coversave, only that IF you are obscured you get one.

Wrong, the RAW says the exact opposite.

THEY HAVE A COVERSAVE. WE AGREE ON THIS.

OK, can you understand this is *not* about having a cover save, please?

The rules state that IF YOU ARE OBSCURED your cover save, which ONLY works against wounds, then works against hits.

If you simply havea cover save it only works against wounds UNLESS you are also obscured. Nopt obscured? You dont have permission to USE the save agaisnt HITS.

So if I had something like friendly troops in front obscuring the vehicle, since it would then both be obscured, and have a save, it could be used?

Yes, because it has a cover save from being obscured, and can use that cover save BECAUSE it is obscured.

Have /= Use, which is the point you are missing.

Gwar! wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:Nowhere does it say that is the only possible situation that a vehicle could get a save,

Nowhere does it say I can't take a hammer to your kneecaps whenever I fail a save either.

The Rules tell you what you CAN do, not what you can't. The rules say you can take a cover save vs Pen or Glance if the vehicle is Obscured. It does not allow you to take them at any other time.

The Codex says you get a cover save if within 6" of the rune priest. Codex > BRB.


Ok everyone, I think too many people are taking RAI and using it as RAW.

The RAW is pretty simple
Codex Space Wolves w/ FAQ page 37
"At the beginning of his turn, the Rune Priest may summon a storm of psychic power that is centered around himself. Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save."

Then you go lookup Vehicles and Cover Saves on Page 62 of BRB
"If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table."

Boom! that is all the RAW there is for this. Every other argument on this topic is trying to apply context to the sentence on page 62 that was not explicitly written there. Whenever you apply additional context to a rule that was not part of the written rule itself, you are dealing with RAI.


But I will be happy to argue RAI for the moment with everyone. Lets start with the first sentence.
Page 62 of BRB
"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 (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). "

Ok, so this sentence states the following
IF you are obscured THEN you may take a cover save for your vehicle

This is a directional statement, it cannot be reversed so the following statement is NOT valid.
IF you may take a cover save for you vehicle THEN you are obscured

IF you could do this then the following analogy would be valid (which it isn't)
"all squares are rectangles" (true statement) could be reversed to "all rectangles are squares" (not a true statement as most rectangles are not squares). I will show more examples how how you can derive more faulty logic by reversing directional statement later on in my post.

Again, directional statements CANNOT be reversed and applied. Therefore, comments like the following.
"Vehicles can only take a cover save if they are obscured. "
or
"The rules say you can take a cover save vs Pen or Glance if the vehicle is Obscured. It does not allow you to take them at any other time"

are not valid statements based on RAW. They are RAI statements based on the interpretation of the commenter. The BRB only states that IF you are obscured THEN you may take a cover save, nothing more can be gleaned from this statement.

Lets now look at the Codex sentence, remember Codex trumps BRB.
Codex Space Wolves w/ FAQ page 37
"At the beginning of his turn, the Rune Priest may summon a storm of psychic power that is centered around himself. Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save."

This states the following.
IF you are within 6" of the Rune Priest THEN you benefit from a 5+ cover save.

Again no reversing allowed so this is not valid.
IF you benefit from a 5+ cover save THEN you are within 6" of the Rune Priest

It is easy to disprove this assertion because you can be behind High Grass, Crops, Bushes, Hedges or Fences and be further than 6" from the Rune Priest, yet receive a 5+ cover save. Like I said, you cannot reverse a directional statement and assume it is valid (ie. all rectangles are not squares).

So the Storm Caller power grants a cover save in the same fashion as being obscured grants a cover save to the vehicle. It single-handedly violates the assertion that you must be obscured to take a cover save. A cover save is granted, no matter its origin. If you concede that the storm caller power allows a cover save to be taken by the vehicle, then you must follow RAW on how to apply it.

Gwar has suggested that you go to the infantry wounding rules for the cover save and since they cannot be applied, there is no save. This is not the case, vehicles never use the infantry rules for anything unless it is explicitly stated as such (ie. walkers in the movement and combat phases). Therefore you must look for RAW in the Vehicles being Shot section of the BRB and under the cover saves paragraph, no other place in the rule book is appropriate (you cannot hop to a different unit type for BRB rules as you see fit, it must be explicitly permitted, otherwise I think I am going to start running my vehicles in lieu of shooting ). The first sentence in that paragraph has already been covered as

IF you are obscured THEN you may take a cover save for your vehicle

So now we look at the second sentence for RAW on how to handle cover saves on vehicles.
Page 62 of the BRB.
"If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table."

This states the following.
IF the cover save is passed THEN you discard the hit and no damage roll is made

Notice how once again we CANNOT reverse the statement and expect it to be true
IF you discard the hit and no damage roll is made THEN the cover save is passed

That is not a valid statement because you could hit the vehicle and fail to penetrate the armor, thus discarding the hit and not rolling on the damage table without a cover save being involved at all. I repeat, directional statements CANNOT be reversed and applied.

No where in the rule does it say if the save is passed and the vehicle is obscured, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table. That is adding additional context to the written rule that is not explicitly stated there, hence any assertion of that type is RAI. That may be your interpretation of the sentence, but that is not the strict RAW of it.

Now once you have a rule to allow a cover save to be taken,
IF you are within 6" of the Rune Priest THEN you benefit from a 5+ cover save.

and you have a rule of how to apply the cover save to a vehicle
IF the cover save is passed THEN you discard the hit and no damage roll is made

then you have no choice but to apply it as it is written in the rules and let the vehicle ignore damage rolls on a 5+ if it is in range of the rune priest and storm caller was successfully cast. That is my RAI.

Thank you,

No but it does say "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing orpenetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it,"

Sigh.

For the n'th time. The second sentence context and subject is the cover save from the first sentence. This is the sepcial permission needed to make a cover save that only works against Wounds work against Hits.

So no, it doesnt work, either RAI or RAW.

wolvesoffenris wrote:The Codex says you get a cover save if within 6" of the rune priest. Codex > BRB.

Funny how a wall of text is invalidated by the first line.

Codex does NOT always trump Rulebook. Specific trumps general,

Storm Caller Gives a General Cover save
Vehicles only use if if they are ALSO obscured.

The vehicle rule is more specific than the general cover rules.

*sigh* I wanted a runepriest rhino rush of doooM!

Do you think 3 rhino's* with 3 JotWW spewing out (paired with other useful powers such as Murderous hurricane, tempest wrath and living lightning), along with another 3 TL-lascannon razorbacks and 2 longfang rocketboat (and one plasma boat) rhino's are enough/worthy of bothering to contemplate as a list?

* Without that storm caller coversave (beside smoke launchers).

RTFBGB....

BGB page 62:

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.

It then details the EXPLICIT cases where a vehicle is considered in cover.
This is boiled down to : 50% facing side that is being targeted is obscured.

It then EXPLICITLY states if a special rule or piece of wargear CONFER TO A VEHICLE THE ABILITY OF BEING OBSCURED if in the open it receives a cover save.

Smoke launchers, explicitly place the vehicle into obscured cover.

Does Storm Caller confer the Obscured ability? No, then no cover save.

Codex rules trump BRB.

If the SW codex says units get a cover save, they get a cover save.

The BRB says vehicles deep striking count as going cruising speed. Vehicles moving at cruising speed cannot fire.

The Black Templars codex says their drop pods may shoot upon landing. Therefore they can.

Pretty cut and dried. The Codex rule overrides any restrictions etc and ignores any terms. The rules say what you can and can't do....in this case, SW units get a 5+ cover save.

There is no such "obscured ability". Normally you get a cover save from being obscured. In this case, the power says it gives units a cover save. End of story.

Remember...this is a FANTASY game. You are looking for an explanation that does not exist. You're ok with Marines riding wolves and elves wearing pants, but not ok with a power that says a unit gets a cover save...

General Hobbs wrote:

Codex rules trump BRB.

If the SW codex says units get a cover save, they get a cover save.

The BRB says vehicles deep striking count as going cruising speed. Vehicles moving at cruising speed cannot fire.

The Black Templars codex says their drop pods may shoot upon landing. Therefore they can.

Pretty cut and dried. The Codex rule overrides any restrictions etc and ignores any terms. The rules say what you can and can't do....in this case, SW units get a 5+ cover save.

I agree with you 100%. If your Rhino takes a wound when the Storm Caller is there it gets to take a cover save.

No one is saying they (vehicles) don't recive a cover save, we are saying they do not have permission to use it against glance/pen hits untill they are obscured.



Sigh..... Time for a Mod-Lock again?

General Hobbs wrote:Codex rules trump BRB.

How can I put this..

NO

IT

DOESN'T

The Codex does NOT Trump the Rulebook. If it did, Sweeping Advance would not work.

If the SW codex says units get a cover save, they get a cover save.

Correct. The SW Codex does NOT say that vehicles become obscured. Therefore, this cover save, when applied to vehicles, can ONLY be used against wounds, which vehicles do not have.

"Obscured" is defined as any time a vehicle can "claim to be in cover."

So, the linchpin is this: when is a unit "in cover"?

The only time this is explicitly addressed is in the cover section. Any time a unit is "in cover" it has a cover save- in fact, terrain is solely described in terms of how it affects movement and the cover save it grants.

So, if a unit is in cover, it has a save. If a unit has a cover save, it is in cover-- "in cover" is solely described in functional terms.

So, if a vehicle can claim to be in cover, it is obscured. If it is obscured, its cover saves apply to Pens/Glances.

Will one of the RAW RAW RAW crowd please give me a better definition of cover if this one is unsatisfactory?

All the arguments to the contrary are hung up on the NORMAL rules for vehicles "in cover." But, "obscured" refers only to when a vehicle can claim to be in cover. NORMALLY, this requires 50% of a facing to be hidden. Stormcaller is NOT a 'normal' means of being "in cover."

kartofelkopf wrote:"Obscured" is defined as any time a vehicle can "claim to be in cover."

... And where is this said?

"At least 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."

When a vehicle can claim to be in cover, it is said to be obscured. Normally, this means 50% of the facing... but that is not the only manner in which a vehicle can claim to be in cover.

kartofelkopf wrote:"At least 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."

When a vehicle can claim to be in cover, it is said to be obscured. Normally, this means 50% of the facing... but that is not the only manner in which a vehicle can claim to be in cover.

Having a cover save doesn't mean you can claim to be in cover.

Then what defines "in cover?"

The only definition in the BRB is the functional one of the save it grants. p21 has all the definition to be found in the book. Cover is described SOLELY in terms of the save it confers (and how it affects movement, but that's not particularly pertinent here).

Razor wire IS a 6+ save. Gun pits ARE a 4+ save. There's no other way to describe cover outside of the save it grants.

it then goes to state that cover doesnt work the same way for vehicles as it does for infantry (see my quote) therefore the same assumptions can not be made for vehicles that you do with infantry...

It then goes to state, as i've said before, what cases the vehicle is in cover.

it states:
At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening items (terrain, units) to claim to be in cover. If this is the case the vehicle is said to be obscured.

it then also states:
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit it may take a cover save against it.

Therefore BGB RAW for cover saves against a tank explicitly state, in order for the tank to take a cover save it must be obscured. In order for it to be obscured it must be 50% or more covered by terrain or intervening units.

Because storm caller does not make the tank obscured in any way shape or form, it does not get its cover save.

Razor wire is not a cover save for a vehicle if it does not cover half the vehicles visible side, a gun pit that the tank may tower over does not obscure the tank to the required 50% of the hull visible to the shooter, from the shooters perspective.

And we are in agreement that a vehicle, with 50% of its facing hidden, can claim to be in cover, and is thus obscured.

The question, then, is what does it mean to be "in cover?"

Is a unit of infantry with stormcaller cast on them "in cover?"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seriphis wrote:

Therefore BGB RAW for cover saves against a tank explicitly state, in order for the tank to take a cover save it must be obscured. In order for it to be obscured it must be 50% or more covered by terrain or intervening units.

But, that's not at all what it says. It says that when a vehicle can "claim to be in cover" it is called "obscured."

The NORMAL means of achieving "in cover" is by hiding behind terrain/models.

Stormcaller puts the vehicle "in cover" (by granting it a cover save).


If you can present a rules-based alternative for defining "in cover," I'm all ears.

in cover for infantry is defined differently in the BGB, and for the purposes of storm caller i would call them in cover.

i think part of the issue that is coming up from this is that there is no height to the power. eg is it a circle on the ground, everything in that is 'in cover' or is everything inside the circle 'obscured'. For infantry there is mention of being obscured, but no requirement for it to be obscured, however with vehicles there is an exception made and a requirement for it to be considered obscured by explicit definition of obscured = in cover, not, in cover = obscured.

the best middle ground that i could imagine, making it a house rule would be to say if the side the tank was being shot on was 50% covered by the power, while assuming the power was a pillar with radius of the power's radius, it could, maybe, be considered obscured and allowed its cover save. If it is glanced on the opposite side of the vehicle to where the unit who is shooting at it is and the side the shooter is on is 0% obscured by the power then no, no cover save.

The bgb indicates that only if the target is obscured, eg, 50% of the face of armour is in cover, it is permitted to take a cover save against the damage. If the power can obscure 50% of the vehicle's targeted face from the shooter's point of view i could be swayed to allow the save.

Gwar! wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:Codex rules trump BRB.

How can I put this..

NO

IT

DOESN'T

The Codex does NOT Trump the Rulebook. If it did, Sweeping Advance would not work.

If the SW codex says units get a cover save, they get a cover save.

Correct. The SW Codex does NOT say that vehicles become obscured. Therefore, this cover save, when applied to vehicles, can ONLY be used against wounds, which vehicles do not have.

So Black Templar Drop Pods cannot shoot when they Deepstrike in?

General Hobbs wrote:So Black Templar Drop Pods cannot shoot when they Deepstrike in?

Yes, they can, because the rule found in the codex is more specific than the rule found in the Rulebook.

By your Logic, Sweeping Advance and Power Weapons do not work.

SA says "No Saves"
Codex Goes "I HAVE A SAVE"

Power Weapons say "No Armour Saves"
Codex Says "I HAVE AN ARMOUR SAVE"

Kartel - this is the exact same fallacious argument you made in the other thread.

Being "in cover" grants a cover save. this is "A implies B"

It is logically FALSE to state the reflection: having a cover save does NOT mean you are "in cover" - no matter how many times you try to say it, "B->A" cannot be shown to be true.

So no, simply HAVING a cover save does NOT mean you are "in cover", and certainly does not mean you are always obscured. thus, you are not obscured (unless by other means...) and therefore cannot USE your cover save agaisnt wounds.

General Hobbs - as has been pointed out to you, SPecific > General is what youre looking for. Here, SC gives you a cover save, but without saying (like Bjorn does) that you can use this cover save against HITS, it only works against wounds, as cover saves only work against wounds usually.

nos

And you continue to refuse to answer my simple questions (or back up your position with passages from the BRB). As for the logical fallacy, A = B is TRUE. I'm not saying "A implies B" I'm saying "A IS B." The reverse is also true... if A = B, B = A. If a unit is in cover = unit has a cover save. This is the case because "in cover" is only defined in the book in terms of granting a cover save.

1) What defines a unit as being "in cover?"

2) Is an infantry unit under the effects of Stormcaller "in cover?"

3) Is there any definition for being "in cover" outside of the functional one of "having a cover save?"

Again, let's try to cite examples from, you know, the rules.


edit for spelling

No, that is incorrect.

A unit being in cover implies it has a cover save. "in cover" is NOT equal to "cover save" at all. That is your failing. Page 21 "units IN or BEHIND cover RECIEVE a cover save"

if they were equal the word "recieve" would be entirely incorrect. In additon "When are models in cover?" givesw you the definition you are apparently incapable of reading: when any part of the target models body (...) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is IN COVER"

So, as can be seen: having a cover save is a *consequence* of being in cover, they are NOT equal.

So indeed you are doing the B implies A fallacy. Your A=B propoistion is false.

So, you know, can you counter with some rules in this thread? This is the 2nd thread in as many days where you have proposed this ruleless argument.

1) by being in or behind terrain, such that the mdoel is obscured by using true LOS OR the model is in area terrain. As above basically.

2) No they are not, they HAVe a cover save - they are not "in cover" as that is assuming the logical fallacy of B implies A is true. You cannot do this.

3) Yes, the one where you are told you have to be "obscured from the point of view of the firer"

So, over to you to again prpoopse the same debunked argument. Again.

Go to page 62 in the BRB. There is no explanation to what it means to be in cover. What it does say is that vehicles '...do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry.' It then states in specific terms what this means.

1 - At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle being hidden needs to be hidden...if this is the case the vehicle is said to be 'obscured'

-This defines specific language for vehicles and a specific state, that of being obscured. Next

2 - Vehicle are not obscured simply for being in area terrain

-Obscured is pretty important huh!

It then explicitly states: 'If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it....'

so...'Do you have a cover save?' Yes, cheers!
'Are you obscured?' No, bugger!

I do not understand how you can possibly argue a vehicle does not need to be obscured to take a cover save. It specifically tells you when you can take cover saves in the rules and prefaces it by telling you it does not operate like infantry.

Because they are confusing having a cover save with what that cover save allows you to do?

Cover saves are defined as working on wounds - as all saves are. So, in order to use that cover save against something else, "hits" as an example, you MUST have permission to do so.

The *only* permission comes from the line "If the vehicle is obscured" - if you are not obscured, then you do not have permission to follow the "true" part of the "if" statement.

The only possible way to argue otherwise is to claim that having a cover save -> "in cover" -> "obscured". This is such an illogical (the B->A fallacy) and frankly weird reading of the rules it cannot be supported.

The only possible way to argue otherwise is to claim that having a cover save -> "in cover" -> "obscured". This is such an illogical (the B->A fallacy) and frankly weird reading of the rules it cannot be supported.

I'd say the stronger counter argument would be that you assume all saves Vehicles take are against Glancing and Penetrating hits as they have no wounds. This is a very reasonable interpretation from the give rule set, though granted not backed up by any RaW at all just commonsense.

So to recap by RaW:

Yes you get a cover save. Without the obscured status there is no defined mechanism in the game to take that save against anything other than wounds. This makes the save without the obscured status somewhat useless to said vehcile. But it still has it and can take it against any wounds it receives.

By RaI:

Either

Obscured is very important and because it doesn't explicitely state you get the obscured status they mean for you to realise that means it can not be used by vehciles.

OR

Vehicles always take their saves against penetrating and glancing hits and it gives them a save. The reason obscured occurs in other similar wargear/effects is because obscured had a different meaning in 4th Ed and all incidences of this occur in 4th Ed codexes. Obscured now just grants you a cover save but is not the only way of aquiring it.


So RAW is definitely a no, RaI can be argued either way until GW rules on this or another similar effect (which would also change the RaW).

FlingitNow wrote:
Vehicles always take their saves against penetrating and glancing hits and it gives them a save. The reason obscured occurs in other similar wargear/effects is because obscured had a different meaning in 4th Ed and all incidences of this occur in 4th Ed codexes.

No 5th Ed smoke launchers exist?

As above - Smoke Launchers grant "obscured", and are definitley 5th ed.

So either they wrote obscured so they didnt have to bother writing "4+ cover save that can be taken against hits in the same way as wounds", or they *really* meant that Obscured was important.

Good point forgot about smoke launchers /facepalm. Looks far less cut and dried from an RaI point of veiw now and the RaW is totally cut and dried.

Here are 3 examples with rules that were explicitly written to give cover saves to vehicles.

Pg 71 BRB
A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured(cover save of 4+) when fired at.

Pg 62 BRB
Once per game, after completing its move, a vehicle with smoke launchers can trigger them (it doesn't matter how far it moved.) Place some cotton wool or other suitable marker on or around the vehicle to show it is obscured. The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used it's smoke launchers, but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save.

Pg 30 Tau Codex
A disruption pod throws out distroing images in both visual and magnetic spectra, making it hard to target at range. Weapons firing at the vehicle from more than 12" distant count the vehicle as an Obscured target.

Considering all of these were written prior to the SW Codex, it's my belief that if they intended Storm Caller to grant a useable cover save to vehicles then they would have explicitly given vehicles the obscured status and then stated that it grants a 5+ cover save.

I'd argue none of those examples are particularly relevant. 2 are from the rulebook itself so the consistent wording is not surprising (OK still a little surprising but hey) and the other is from a codex written for the 4th edition rules wher ethe cover system for vehciles worked entierly differently (as did the damage system).

The smoke launchers from the SM codex are a much better example and I presume they reside in the SW codex too (making them hugely more relevant). Not conclusive on the RaI but certainly indicative along with the reasonable argument that squad was changed to units in the powers rules as squads has no meaning in the SW codex (Meaning by RaW nothing would benefit).

Not being a SW (or BA player as they have the same issue) I'm still inclined to let them take the cover save if I was playing them but I'd expect a TO to rule the opposite direction in most cases and it certainly seems the RaI it not obvious (as I first thought).

You missed the Ork KFF which also grants 'Obscured' status to vehicles, and predates the SW codex.

You missed the Ork KFF which also grants 'Obscured' status to vehicles, and predates the SW codex.

And predates 5th Ed rulebook too...

Examples of wording matching from a 4th ed codex actually points towards RaI being that vehicles always take saves against Penetrating and glancing hits and the fluff about obscured was put in to work in concert with the older codexes wording.

Actually I have the 4th edition rulebook with me. It specifically says ' If the target (vehicle) is obscured and a penetrating hit is scored - on a roll of a 4+, the penetrating hit is downgraded to a glancing hit' The only change to the rules is, therefore, the fact that you can simply ignore them now instead of downgrading them, which made being obscured better but in no way shape or form changed when you take 'cover' saves, ie only if the vehicle is obscured.

FlingitNow wrote:
And predates 5th Ed rulebook too...

Examples of wording matching from a 4th ed codex actually points towards RaI being that vehicles always take saves against Penetrating and glancing hits and the fluff about obscured was put in to work in concert with the older codexes wording.

Which would be relevant if:
1. We had an example 4th rule that was completely obviously intended to protect vehicles from shooting but didn't include the wording (or similar wording)

2. Vehicles were simply allowed to take any cover saves they were granted in 4th against hits (I don't believe they could)

As we don't have either, the 4th ed rules for protecting vehicles we have all include obscured. Which, if anything, strongly supports the RAI that obscured is necessary.

Either way, the RAI doesn't really matter as the written rules are functional and clear.

Read my previous post I concede that there are good examples (like the one provided by yourself) just pointing out the ones made aren't.

And:

1. Yeah that would be nice but as you say no such thing exists.

2. Vehicles didn't take cover saves at all in 4th Ed. Obscured meant that all hits counted as glancing rather than penetrating.

the RAI doesn't really matter as the written rules are functional and clear.

What?!?!? The rules don't matter because the RaW functions and is clear. The RaW is functional and clear that Spore mines aren't removed when they explode does that mean we ignore the rules and have them always explode at least twice?

The rules always matter no matter how functional or clear the RaW may be.

I think the brunt of the discussion comes down to how people read the first sentence regarding obscured and cover saves. Everyone seems to agree that the vehicle gets a cover save, but disagrees on if it can be applied using the rules.

If we look at the sentence in question.
Page 62 of BRB
"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 (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). "

It uses the phrase "may take a cover save". This is an ambiguous statement in the English language as the word "may" has two generally accepted meanings.

From Dictionary.com
May
1.
(used to express possibility): It may rain.
2.
(used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.

If you use the first definition for may, then obscured is just a possible way to take a cover save. There are other ways to be granted a cover save and the second sentence tells you how to apply the cover save to the vehicle.

Page 62 of BRB
"If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table."


If instead, you use the second definition for may, then the rule book has told you the only permitted way that a cover save can be taken for a vehicle. So, unless it is obscured, you may not take a save.


The RAW in the vehicle cover save section is indeterminate and not as cut and dry as others seem to believe. What we have is a difference in the interpretation of the rule, which falls under RAI. I don't think this is going to be settled on the forum. Maybe GW will release an updated FAQ for the wolves yet again, or FAQ the Blood Angel power in order to clarify this issue for everyone.

Except that the entire rulebook is written as a permissive ruleset, therefore only the secodn definition actually matters - as it is the only permission given to change the way the rules are defined initially.

If you take the first definition,then you have opened up the entire ruleset needing to be prohibitive, which isnt at all the way the rules are written.

Gwar! wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:So Black Templar Drop Pods cannot shoot when they Deepstrike in?

Yes, they can, because the rule found in the codex is more specific than the rule found in the Rulebook.

By your Logic, Sweeping Advance and Power Weapons do not work.

SA says "No Saves"
Codex Goes "I HAVE A SAVE"

Power Weapons say "No Armour Saves"
Codex Says "I HAVE AN ARMOUR SAVE"

You can't have it both ways. Either the BRB always trumps what is said in codexes, or you have to acknowledge that codexes change the rules in certain instances.

If Templars pods can shoot, then SW vehicles get the cover save.

If you use the first definition for may, then obscured is just a possible way to take a cover save. There are other ways to be granted a cover save and the second sentence tells you how to apply the cover save to the vehicle.

The 2nd sentence firstly only applies to the subject defined in the first sentenced. However even ignoring this the 2nd sentence does not tell how WHEN to take the cover save.

I have a 5+ cover save. I have a rule permitting me to take it against each wounding hit and a rule saying if I pass the test I can ignore a penetrating/glancing hit. I have no rule saying I may take it against said hits unless I have the obscured status, a staus which I do not have.

So if I receive a wounding hit I can take my cover save and that will negate the effects on a glancing/penetrating hit. If I take a glancing/penetrating hit I have no rule allowing me to roll a save against it and no mechanism for determining at which point I take the save or how many saves I take per glancing/penetrating hit.

Also, you do know that 3rd edition Storm Caller could be used on vehicles. Anyone have the language for that? There were what, 4 different wordings of the power in the different editions, and then several FAQ's.

If Templars pods can shoot, then SW vehicles get the cover save.

Yes no one is saying they don't get the cover save. It is just that they only have permission to use this cover save against any wounding hits they receive. I guessing this is not going to be of huge benefit to them.

Codex does trump BRB when it overrides a specific rule (as in the case with BT DPs). But if it does not override a specific rule then it does not override the BRB.

The codex in this instance specifically gives the vehicle a cover save. It does not override the obscured restriction on taking said cover save against glancing/penetrating hits so it can only be used against wounding hits.

Just like the you can't re-roll a re-roll rule prohibits you from using 2 different things to giving you a re-roll each from a codex to re-roll a re-roll.

FlingitNow wrote:What?!?!? The rules don't matter because the RaW functions and is clear. The RaW is functional and clear that Spore mines aren't removed when they explode does that mean we ignore the rules and have them always explode at least twice?

Yes, you do. The Rules ARE the RaW, no matter how much you scream otherwise.

RaI also equals RaW, as if they did not intend for it to be written as such, they would not have written it as such.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that the entire rulebook is written as a permissive ruleset, therefore only the secodn definition actually matters - as it is the only permission given to change the way the rules are defined initially.

If you take the first definition,then you have opened up the entire ruleset needing to be prohibitive, which isnt at all the way the rules are written.

Not quite, using the word "may" is permissive in both definitions, expressing possibility only means that there are options available to the player. The same as the wording for shooting from vehicles.
Page 58 of the BRB
"Vehicles that moved at combat speed may fire a single weapon"

The first definition would say that the player has the possibility to shoot a single weapon.
The second definition would say that the player has permission to shoot a single weapon.

Both definitions are permissive in nature, the ruleset doesn't need to be prohibitive.

FlingitNow wrote:

If Templars pods can shoot, then SW vehicles get the cover save.

Yes no one is saying they don't get the cover save. It is just that they only have permission to use this cover save against any wounding hits they receive. I guessing this is not going to be of huge benefit to them.

Codex does trump BRB when it overrides a specific rule (as in the case with BT DPs). But if it does not override a specific rule then it does not override the BRB.

The codex in this instance specifically gives the vehicle a cover save. It does not override the obscured restriction on taking said cover save against glancing/penetrating hits so it can only be used against wounding hits.

Just like the you can't re-roll a re-roll rule prohibits you from using 2 different things to giving you a re-roll each from a codex to re-roll a re-roll.

Being obstructed gives a cover save.

Fast skimmer flying 12+ inches gives a cover save.

Being affected by Storm Caller gives a cover save.

I fail to see where in the rule book it differentiates cover saves. Gwar and company are interpeting the rules and putting their spin on it. Go back one step. Follow the rule to the letter. Do not throw any interpetation to it.

Gwar.. you've made your point (and I see your point and I think it is correct and logical) but other people are obviously not bothering to pay attention so theres no need to keep responding to crazy posts.

But why would Sweeping advance not work if Codex did infact trump Rulebook? Im curious

Razerous wrote:Gwar.. you've made your point (and I see your point and I think it is correct and logical) but other people are obviously not bothering to pay attention so theres no need to keep responding to crazy posts.

But why would Sweeping advance not work if Codex did infact trump Rulebook? Im curious

Sweeping Advance says "No save or special rule can save them".

The codex says you have a save!

The same can be said of power weapons. BRB Says "No Saves", the codex says "I have a save!"

Yes, you do. The Rules ARE the RaW, no matter how much you scream otherwise.

RaW is not The Rules and never has been nor will it ever be until GW hire some compettant rules writers even then it is highly unlikely RaW would be the rules because mistakes and miss-wordings would still happen (just not quite as frequently as currently).

Being obstructed gives a cover save.

Fast skimmer flying 12+ inches gives a cover save.

Being affected by Storm Caller gives a cover save.

I fail to see where in the rule book it differentiates cover saves. Gwar and company are interpeting the rules and putting their spin on it. Go back one step. Follow the rule to the letter. Do not throw any interpetation to it.

How many times do poeple have to spell out that no one is saying you don't get a cover save? Yes you get the cover save but you can only use it against glancing and penetrating hits.

If you disagree with the RaW please post a rule that allows a model to take a save (or cover save) against a penetrating or glancing hit. The only one I am aware of demands that you have the obscured status. If you know of another please post it with page reference.

Just had another thought, at the bottom of page 62 of the BRB

"It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a 3+ cover save."

This does not explicitly grant obscured status to the vehicle, just the save. So can this scenario occur without the vehicle being obscured? The answer is yes! See below.

page 62 of BRB
"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"

So the facing being targeted must be 50% hidden to be obscured, but they can opt to target a different facing than normal according to the first rule. This alternate facing is not guaranteed to be 50% hidden and I have illustrated an example where it would not be. The firer cannot see the facing he is in, fully hidden, but they can see all of the facing they are targeting (the side armor). Therefore if you follow the arguement that the cover save cannot work without obscured status then there are many possibilities for this rule to grant no save at all!

So let me get this straight... Spore Mines don't get removed when they explode?

wolvesoffenris wrote:Just had another thought, at the bottom of page 62 of the BRB

"It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a 3+ cover save."

This does not explicitly grant obscured status to the vehicle, just the save. So can this scenario occur without the vehicle being obscured? The answer is yes! See below.

page 62 of BRB
"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"

So the facing being targeted must be 50% hidden to be obscured, but they can opt to target a different facing than normal according to the first rule. This alternate facing is not guaranteed to be 50% hidden and I have illustrated an example where it would not be. The firer cannot see the facing he is in, fully hidden, but they can see all of the facing they are targeting (the side armor). Therefore if you follow the arguement that the cover save cannot work without obscured status then there are many possibilities for this rule to grant no save at all!

Correct. And this affects this argument... how? The 3+ cover save can only be used if the vehicle is obscured. If the vehicle is not obscured, the firer gets a clear shot, even if it is "angled".

Makes sense to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ihatehumans wrote:So let me get this straight... Spore Mines don't get removed when they explode?

Nope. They are, however, hot by their own blast, which means they explode again, and then are removed

wolvesoffenris Yes it is true you would not be able to use that 3+ cover save if you were not obscured. But I fail to see how you could have your entire facing covered and not be obscured? You only 50% cover so I'm pretty certain having 100% covered would grant you the obscured status.

Gwar! wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:So let me get this straight... Spore Mines don't get removed when they explode?

Nope. They are, however, hit by their own blast, which means they explode again, and then are removed

Unless you roll a 1 to wound them in which case they can carry on or would explode again if there were still enemies around them if for instance they had assaulted a unit or just not killed the model touching them when they first exploded.

FlingitNow wrote:wolvesoffenris Yes it is true you would not be able to use that 3+ cover save if you were not obscured. But I fail to see how you could have your entire facing covered and not be obscured? You only 50% cover so I'm pretty certain having 100% covered would grant you the obscured status.

Gwar! wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:So let me get this straight... Spore Mines don't get removed when they explode?

Nope. They are, however, hit by their own blast, which means they explode again, and then are removed

Unless you roll a 1 to wound them in which case they can carry on or would explode again if there were still enemies around them if for instance they had assaulted a unit or just not killed the model touching them when they first exploded.

Yup, good point. My Bad

Spore Mines went from useless to Godly. Before they were 1 use and gave up KP, now they don;t give up KP and are multiple use, and can move normally and can assault

Though I don't advise you ever try to pull that in a game because:

a) It is cheating

b) You'll probably get slapped or at least hated.

FlingitNow wrote:Though I don't advise you ever try to pull that in a game because:

a) It is cheating

Ladies in gentlemen: Flingitnow!
He'll call you a cheater for following the rules in the book but not the ones in his head!

General Hobbs wrote:Being obstructed gives a cover save.

And then explicitly states that this save can be used against hits, as it fulfils the requirements of page 62.

General Hobbs wrote:Fast skimmer flying 12+ inches gives a cover save.

No, it gives you obscured status whcih tehn gives you a cover save. And this fulfils the requirements on page 62, and the save may then be used against hits instead of wounds.

General Hobbs wrote:Being affected by Storm Caller gives a cover save.

Except the save does not state it can be used against hits, therefore it only saves against wounds. This is because it doesnt fulfil the requirements for page 62.

General Hobbs wrote:I fail to see where in the rule book it differentiates cover saves. Gwar and company are interpeting the rules and putting their spin on it. Go back one step. Follow the rule to the letter. Do not throw any interpetation to it.

We're not interpreting the rules, you are entirely ignoring the rules. And how are you missing the line on page 62 which states the only way you can take a save against hits is to be Obscured? IF you are finding permission elsewhere then you really should, you know, actually post some rules?

He'll call you a cheater for following the rules in the book but not the ones in his head!

I'll call you a cheater for willfully breaking the rules of the game. Any one that plays that Spore mines aren't removed when they explode is doing this. Just like anyone claiming the Swarmlord's Paroxysm lasts for ever or that the Doom of Malan'tai does get a 3++ save or that Monolith's gain a shot from every weapon destroyed result...

FlingitNow wrote:

He'll call you a cheater for following the rules in the book but not the ones in his head!

I'll call you a cheater for willfully breaking the rules of the game. Any one that plays that Spore mines aren't removed when they explode is doing this. Just like anyone claiming the Swarmlord's Paroxysm lasts for ever or that the Doom of Malan'tai does get a 3++ save or that Monolith's gain a shot from every weapon destroyed result...

Actually, it's the exact opposite. By the rules, Spore mines aren't removed when they explode, Swarmlord's Paroxysm doesn't work at all, the Doom of Malan'tai doesn't get a 3++ save and the Monolith's gain a shot from every weapon destroyed result.

Actually, it's the exact opposite. By the rules, Spore mines aren't removed when they explode, Swarmlord's Paroxysm doesn't work at all, the Doom of Malan'tai doesn't get a 3++ save and the Monolith's gain a shot from every weapon destroyed result.

Wrong again Gwar the rules are clear clear on all these points. Whilst RaW is on you side unfortunately for you RaW =/= The rules, never has done and never will

FlingitNow wrote:

Actually, it's the exact opposite. By the rules, Spore mines aren't removed when they explode, Swarmlord's Paroxysm doesn't work at all, the Doom of Malan'tai doesn't get a 3++ save and the Monolith's gain a shot from every weapon destroyed result.

Wrong again Gwar the rules are clear clear on all these points. Whilst RaW is on you side unfortunately for you RaW =/= The rules, never has done and never will

Actually, the RaW is the rules.

How can rules that are not written be rules?

Why doesn't Paroxysm work at all? Something that lasts until a point that will never occur in fact itself never occurs? Sounds like PaW Philosophy as Written

I think what FlingitNow is trying to say is that sometimes it's not RaW but RaI that is used, simply because no-one, not even GW in all their mighty rules writing experience, manages to express things perfectly ALL THE TIME. When such failures occur, it is us as player's RESPONSIBILITY to consider rectifying the problem.

If you question this, go to the INAT FAQ and search for "Rules Change" and see what kind of results you get

ihatehumans wrote:Why doesn't Paroxysm work at all?

Gah, my mistake, it does work I was thinking of the wording for Psychic Scream

Gwar! wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:

Actually, it's the exact opposite. By the rules, Spore mines aren't removed when they explode, Swarmlord's Paroxysm doesn't work at all, the Doom of Malan'tai doesn't get a 3++ save and the Monolith's gain a shot from every weapon destroyed result.

Wrong again Gwar the rules are clear clear on all these points. Whilst RaW is on you side unfortunately for you RaW =/= The rules, never has done and never will

Actually, the RaW is the rules.

How can rules that are not written be rules?

Rules are the Rules. They, however, may not mean what you think they do.

Actually, the RaW is the rules.

How can rules that are not written be rules?

RAW does not and never will equal The Rules. The rules were designed by gamesworkshop and then they wrote the rulebook to communicate those rules to us. However their writing leaves lots to be desired and their rules are sometimes poorly written but the intention is clear and at other times you can't even be sure what they meant to say.

Clearly and willfully breaking the designers rules is cheating even if you are following the letter of what they wrote (i.e. claiming paroxysm lasts forever or that your spore mines aren't removed when they explode).

RaW is a method for interpreting the rules from the rulebook(s) nothing more, and a highly flawed method at that.

Well, once again, it's been the usual delightful thread, we really appreciate the snide remarks fellas, top work.

Don't forget to come back next time when we argue if you should ever have to remove any model as a casualty if you've borrowed the army as the book only refers to removing your own models.

Blimey, that GW eh , it's almost like they expect people to think a bit and use context.

Jah bless internets.

Oh.. don't insult other users or call them names either. Ta.