Can some monstrous creatures ignore cover for just being taller ? Let's say a wall is in the way ,and it's up to its knees, between it and a puny guardsman. Both units are quite a bit of distant from the wall. Since monstrous creatures don't shoot like vehicles at what height is the shot coming from? If the shot is coming from it's food the guardsman would still get cover ;/.

If the model is tall enough that the terrain doesnt obstruct LOS, then the terrain doesn't obstruct LOS.

You take LOS from anywhere in the model's body.

 insaniak wrote:
If the model is tall enough that the terrain doesnt obstruct LOS, then the terrain doesn't obstruct LOS.

You take LOS from anywhere in the model's body.

Unless they are IN the Terrain, of course.

Charistoph wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If the model is tall enough that the terrain doesnt obstruct LOS, then the terrain doesn't obstruct LOS.

You take LOS from anywhere in the model's body.

Unless they are IN the Terrain, of course.

Provided that said terrain gives a save for being IN it. Otherwise its LOS.

Fragile wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If the model is tall enough that the terrain doesnt obstruct LOS, then the terrain doesn't obstruct LOS.

You take LOS from anywhere in the model's body.

Unless they are IN the Terrain, of course.

Provided that said terrain gives a save for being IN it. Otherwise its LOS.

And that the unit in question is a non-vehicle unit, as in the case of the OP's "puny guardsman" example.

Why does being non-vehicle make a difference?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why does being non-vehicle make a difference?

I've edited my post to make clearer what I was referring to, that if the unit were in terrain that grants a cover save for being in it, it would only apply if they were a non-vehicle unit as vehicles of course are not granted cover saves simply for being in terrain.

Are they not? Got a reference for that?

P77 - Vehicles and Cover - 2nd bullet

That has nothing to do with how area terrain works now though. Nothing is obscured by being in terrain so that is just a reminder if how normal cover works. Then the datasheets give cover regardless of obscures status so work just as much for vehicles as anything else.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Are they not? Got a reference for that?

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

I'm guessing you want to get picky about how the rulebook uses the phrase "are not obscured" rather than something like "do not gain a cover save" but the last sentence is the more important of the two.

Needing to actually be at least 25% hidden takes precedence over being in terrain such as woods or ruins.

 FlingitNow wrote:
That has nothing to do with how area terrain works now though. Nothing is obscured by being in terrain so that is just a reminder if how normal cover works. Then the datasheets give cover regardless of obscures status so work just as much for vehicles as anything else.

Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save regardless of whether or not they are obscured. P108

All of the terrain datasheets (craters, woods, etc.) say this as well. P184-191

You don't get obscured or cover just for being in woods or ruins. There are however special terrain datasheets at the end of the rulebook that do provide cover save to models in the terrain regardless of obscured status these work for vehicles just as much as any other model. Area terrain is no longer a thing in 7th.

Given that you're told to base the rules for scratch built terrain on the terrain datasheets then virtually all terrain has those rules. P183

And ruins are called out explicitly outside of the datasheets.

Given that, surely the vehicle rule is more specific stating that vehicles are an exception to those rules?

So to be specific woods, craters and ruins do nothing. However Twisted Copse, Moonscape, Sanctum Imperialis, Basilica Administratum etc give cover saves to models in them regardless of obscured status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Given that you're told to base the rules for scratch built terrain on the terrain datasheets then virtually all terrain has those rules. P183

And ruins are called out explicitly outside of the datasheets.

Given that, surely the vehicle rule is more specific stating that vehicles are an exception to those rules?

Nope vehicle rules are no where near as specific as say the Twisted Copse rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So to be specific woods, craters and ruins do nothing. However Twisted Copse, Moonscape, Sanctum Imperialis, Basilica Administratum etc give cover saves to models in them regardless of obscured status.

Did you even read what I posted? Ruins are explicitly called out as granting cover regardless of obscuration on P108. This is entirely separate to the terrain datasheets.


Also, there is no "woods" or "ruins" or "craters" terrain model. You're told to make a datasheet for your scratch built terrain and that you should use the datasheets in rulebook as an example for how to do this.

Therefore the logical thing to do is to give your scratch built generic woods and ruins the same rules and this is suggested.

P183

 FlingitNow wrote:
Nope vehicle rules are no where near as specific as say the Twisted Copse rules.

Given that all ruins, woods, craters, etc. will have those rules following the guidelines for non-official models given on P183 I would disagree that the terrain rules are more specific.

Cover rule that applies to all ruins/woods/craters (unless you choose for it not to) and applies to all models which says you don't need to be 25% obscured.
vs.
Cover exception rule that applies only to vehicles and says you must always be 25% obscured.

If the rule on P77 isn't expressly calling out an exception to those rules then what is it doing?

 insaniak wrote:
If the model is tall enough that the terrain doesnt obstruct LOS, then the terrain doesn't obstruct LOS.

You take LOS from anywhere in the model's body.

This is the end-all be all. There are some terrain pieces that ignore LOS and grant you cover simply for being "in" them, regardless of obscurement, though the vehicle rules specify that this can never be the case. They ALWAYS need to be obscured. Which terrain pieces require obscurement and which pieces do not are explicitly defined in the data sheets created by GW as well as the battlefield terrain section that defines what each piece of terrain is.

Fling is correct in that there is no such thing as explicit "area terrain"; however a number of pieces of terrain effectively function in the same way. What you will find pretty much no matter where you go is that opponents will discuss how the terrain works prior to deployment so that there is no confusion because there definitely could be. Most tournaments just say "this is going to work LIKE area terrain and the cover save you get is _____ ". This is for ease of playing at a high speed without having to worry about wobbly models and/or not being able to place models.

When you use p183 to make up your own rules how you make up those rules will determine how they interact with p77. If you make them the same as the official ones in the rulebook then they will be more specific than generic vehicle rules. But yes made up rules may well interact with p77 differently than the normal rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
When you use p183 to make up your own rules how you make up those rules will determine how they interact with p77. If you make them the same as the official ones in the rulebook then they will be more specific than generic vehicle rules. But yes made up rules may well interact with p77 differently than the normal rules.

If you're not "making up rules" then you're left using the official 40K scenery which (mostly) has datasheets granting an exception to the obscuration rule.

And there is an explicit call out for ruins always granting cover regardless of being obscured on P108.

Since all ruins and virtually all woods and craters are granting cover without obscuration it seems pretty clear what the vehicles exception to be granted cover without obscuration does.

It might be "obvious" it isn't however what the rules say. And yes of you don't make up your own rules for units you can only use GW units and the same is true for terrain. Why exactly is that surprising or odd?

 FlingitNow wrote:
It might be "obvious" it isn't however what the rules say. And yes of you don't make up your own rules for units you can only use GW units and the same is true for terrain. Why exactly is that surprising or odd?

If you're only using GW terrain then virtually all terrain grants cover without obscuration. If you're using your other terrain then the rulebook tells you to give it rules in line with those same datasheets. Additionally all ruins grant cover without obscuration (despite your claims to the contrary).

Lets take ruins as an example:
Ruins grant cover to all models without obscuration.
Vehicles have a rule that says they must always be obscured to get cover and don't get a cover save "simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins".

Very clear which is more specific.

 FlingitNow wrote:
You don't get obscured or cover just for being in woods or ruins. There are however special terrain datasheets at the end of the rulebook that do provide cover save to models in the terrain regardless of obscured status these work for vehicles just as much as any other model. Area terrain is no longer a thing in 7th.

So in fact what I said was correct:

"...as vehicles of course are not granted cover saves simply for being in terrain."

If a rule is simply that models in it receive a cover save then the at least 25% requirement for vehicles takes precedence.

To override that a terrain datasheet would require a rule which says, "Models, including vehicles, in this terrain receive a cover save." Which I wasn't talking about.

Vehicles don't get obscured for being in terrain. So any terrain that gives cover regardless of obscured status has no interaction with that rule and thus gives Vehicles a cover save. So ruins also give vehicles the cover save for the same reason. Likewise the scratch built terrain rules would give you a cover save on your vehicles if you made those rules in line with the existing datasheets. However if you wrote those rules differently then they could interact with pg77 differently.

From the first line under 'Cover Saves':

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover... Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save."

So "obscured" = "in cover" = "entitled to a cover save".

So then what the second point under 'Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets' basically says is, "Vehicles are not in cover and entitled to a cover save simply for being in terrain such as woods or ruins."

That has everything to do with terrain that grants a cover save to models for simply being in it, i.e. terrain such as woods and ruins.

Unless you disagree with the terms meanings relative to each other as I've given them (in which case please explain) I'm having trouble understanding the rules support for your position, so could you please explain?

The ruins etc state you get a cover save not that you are in cover or obscured. The datasheets explicitly state that this has nothing to do with being obscured. Models in cover are obscured and gain a cover save from that, however that is not the only way to get cover as evidenced by Ruins, Terrain Datasheets, Shrouded, Jink etc.

The datasheets actually say regardless of whether or not the model is 25% obscured. The fact that vehicles tell us the 25% requirement takes precedence rather links the two and overrides what the rules for ruins and the like say.

One says you must be 25% obscured to be in cover. The other says you get a cover save regardless of being obscured which you yourself have stated means the same asin cover. So 1 rule states you must be 25% obscured to be in cover the other gives you a cover save regardless of whether you are in cover. I don't see the conflict. The vehicle is not in cover but receives a cover save anyway.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Vehicles don't get obscured for being in terrain. So any terrain that gives cover regardless of obscured status has no interaction with that rule and thus gives Vehicles a cover save. So ruins also give vehicles the cover save for the same reason. Likewise the scratch built terrain rules would give you a cover save on your vehicles if you made those rules in line with the existing datasheets. However if you wrote those rules differently then they could interact with pg77 differently.

Part of me thinks you were trolling here but if not I can't understand how you can disregard the vehicle cover rule in the vehicle section of the rules as stated above. That rule takes precedent unless a terrain data sheet specifically states how it affects vehicles. I don't know of anywhere that they play the way you are talking about and in every case vehicles clues must be 25%+ to get the save

You have a vehicle rule that states they must be 25% obscured to get a cover save? If so I'd love to hear it. Are you saying a vehicle with Shrouded wouldn't get a 5+ cover save in the open as it is not 25% obscured? Or a jinking vehicle also doesn't receive a cover save unless it is 25% obscured?

If you disagree with my interpretation then please actually state what is incorrect that I have actually stated. Or we are just going to go in a circle covering all points that Shrike brought up that were proven incorrect.

He's not trolling. He's pointing out how the wording of the vehicle rule basically makes itself useless. RAW he's right.

the rule says you are not obscured. nothing says you MUST be obscured to take a cover save. It's just one way of receiving one.

So, again, the rule just says you are not obscured. the terrain datasheets grant you a save regardless of whether or not you're obscured.

This is not hiwpi, and I personally believe RAI is against RAW in this case. The rule is there for a reason, and I think that reason is to not grant cover saves from the terrain rules

I have the digital copy so page reference from me is moot heh. To be clear jink, smoke, etc..specifically reference vehicles so that is a silly comparison. I don't read anything that specifically counters the vehicle cover/obscured rules and again have yet to see anyone play it the way you are stating. If a data sheet specifically references a vehicle as getting cover for being in then no argument from me but if it is standard battlefield terrain then the rule book clearly states 25% obscured gets the cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have the digital copy so page reference from me is moot heh. To be clear jink, smoke, etc..specifically reference vehicles so that is a silly comparison. I don't read anything that specifically counters the vehicle cover/obscured rules and again have yet to see anyone play it the way you are stating. If a data sheet specifically references a vehicle as getting cover for being in then no argument from me but if it is standard battlefield terrain then the rule book clearly states 25% obscured gets the cover.

So can you actually argue against any of the points raised? If you have the digital rulebook that is fine quote the actual rule. There is no rule that prevents vehicles from receiving a cover save. Jink certainly does not directly reference vehicles nor does Shrouding. So again do you have anything to actually add to the discussion or any valid points to raise?

 FlingitNow wrote:
You have a vehicle rule that states they must be 25% obscured to get a cover save?

I had a similar discussion before... these are the relevant parts:

• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (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 be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

Which means Ruins don't give cover to vehicles unless they're at least 25% covered by them. Jinking, Stealth and Shrouded work as normal with vehicles, though,

Sorry VectorStrike but are you trolling or did you not bother reading the thread? Everything you've stated has already been covered and your conclusion proven false. So either you're trolling by reiterating what you know to be an invalid argument or you didn't read the thread. So which is it?

The vehicle rule states you aren't obscured unless 25% covered. Ruins rules give you a cover save regardless of obscured status just like the datasheets do. Unless you're claiming that without obscured status vehicles can't have cover saves in which case jink doesn't work.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry VectorStrike but are you trolling or did you not bother reading the thread? Everything you've stated has already been covered and your conclusion proven false. So either you're trolling by reiterating what you know to be an invalid argument or you didn't read the thread. So which is it?

The vehicle rule states you aren't obscured unless 25% covered. Ruins rules give you a cover save regardless of obscured status just like the datasheets do. Unless you're claiming that without obscured status vehicles can't have cover saves in which case jink doesn't work.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. This has nothing to do with Jink, which has its own rules.

I asked this previously about having vehicles in battlements, specifically Skimmers. Battlements too have a line about giving 4+ cover no mater how obscured a unit is when on them, but battlements are a kind of terrain - so, vehicles need to be 25% obscured by them to get the cover save.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. 

I'm going to want a quote to back that up.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. 

I'm going to want a quote to back that up.

RUINS
Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

DIFFICULT TERRAIN
Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move through it. It includes areas of rubble, woods, ruins (...)

Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets
• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted[/color] (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 be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

“At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (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 be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.
Vehicles cannot Go to Ground, voluntarily ​
or otherwise.
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or is otherwise hit by an enemy shooting attack that inflicts damage upon it (such as being hit by a weapon with the Graviton special rule, ​
it must take a cover save against it, exactly[…]”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” v1.0. Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.

Not sure how you can argue against that. Your saying we are not proving our point but this is pretty darn clear to me. Maybe I don't understand your argument but it seems you are saying the BRB does not state you don't get a cover. Yeah....it does right there by stating the 25% rule takes precedence. If you had a specific rule for a terrain piece that states vehicles get cover even if not 25% obscured then I would not argue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
“is made on the Vehicle Damage table. If a special rule or a piece of wargear makes a vehicle obscured even if in the open, this is a 5+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex or Army List Entry”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” v1.0. Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/warhammer-40-000-interactive/id879163850?mt=13

Sorry it cut the last part of the rule off.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. 

I'm going to want a quote to back that up.

RUINS
Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

DIFFICULT TERRAIN
Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move through it. It includes areas of rubble, woods, ruins (...)

Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets
• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted[/color] (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 be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

So I take it this means you can't provide a relevant quote to back up your assertation?

As already explained multiple times in this thread Ruins provides a cover save when not obscured and that vehicle rule talks about being obscured and how a vehicle can only be obscured when 25% covered.

So we have 1 rule saying you aren't obscured. Then another saying you get a cover save regardless of whether you are obscured.

Fling, so I understand your position - since (specified) terrain grants cover simply for being in it, regardless of whether or not the model is obscured, the vehicle rule about having to be obscured to be obscured is pointless? Redundant? Waste of ink?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the RAI is in this case?

You all need to understand the difference between being obscured and taking a cover save. It's relevant to flings argument.

If the rule stated "vehicles do not gain cover saves granted by terrain unless they are 25% obscured" then it wouldn't be a problem, but it doesn't. It mentions one way of gaining a cover save which is irrelevant to the terrain granted saves.

Again, not HIWPI or, imo, RAI




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry. Missed happyjews comment. He gets it

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, so I understand your position - since (specified) terrain grants cover simply for being in it, regardless of whether or not the model is obscured, the vehicle rule about having to be obscured to be obscured is pointless? Redundant? Waste of ink?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the RAI is in this case?

RaI for me is that it is most likely a legacy cope and paste fail much like those that litter the Psychic phase. The reason I do not think it is intended to work the way people on here think it works is because it is a clumsy reference to area terrain and they stripped of the area terrain rules. Indeed they stripped nearly all the terrain rules except the datasheets which are entirely unequivocal in working with vehicles (even redundantly reinforcing that obscured doesn't matter). So I see no reason to treat this 1 line on ruins differently to all the datasheets.

 jokerkd wrote:
You all need to understand the difference between being obscured and taking a cover save. It's relevant to flings argument.

No, I tried to establish this early on in the thread but he elected not to engage and explain himself, and went down the "page n graph or I win" route instead...

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
You all need to understand the difference between being obscured and taking a cover save. It's relevant to flings argument.

No, I tried to establish this early on in the thread but he elected not to engage and explain himself, and went down the "page n graph or I win" route instead...

You tried to establish it then made a massive jump that being obscured is the only way to get a cover save which Jink proves wrong. So do you have an actual argument or point?

Nope. I made no comment about nor reply to anything about Jink. I was sticking to the context the rules are in, i.e. terrain such as woods or ruins.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. 

I'm going to want a quote to back that up.

RUINS
Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

DIFFICULT TERRAIN
Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move through it. It includes areas of rubble, woods, ruins (...)

Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets
• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted[/color] (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 be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

So I take it this means you can't provide a relevant quote to back up your assertation?

As already explained multiple times in this thread Ruins provides a cover save when not obscured and that vehicle rule talks about being obscured and how a vehicle can only be obscured when 25% covered.

So we have 1 rule saying you aren't obscured. Then another saying you get a cover save regardless of whether you are obscured.

The vehicle rules are more specific and apply.

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry due to their sheer size and bulk......

Then you have the exceptions to the rule, which are posted as to how a vehicle can get a cover save.

 FlingitNow wrote:
That has nothing to do with how area terrain works now though. Nothing is obscured by being in terrain so that is just a reminder if how normal cover works. Then the datasheets give cover regardless of obscures status so work just as much for vehicles as anything else.

This was his 3rd post in the thread. Admittedly, i didn't quite understand what he meant by it at first, but after reading the relevant sections, you'll see how not being obscured is only relevant to saves granted by being obscured.

The terrain rules do not say you are obscured just by being in/on them. They say you are granted a save that is specifically not dependant on whether you are obscured

Fragile wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. 

I'm going to want a quote to back that up.

RUINS
Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

DIFFICULT TERRAIN
Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move through it. It includes areas of rubble, woods, ruins (...)

Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets
• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted[/color] (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 be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

So I take it this means you can't provide a relevant quote to back up your assertation?

As already explained multiple times in this thread Ruins provides a cover save when not obscured and that vehicle rule talks about being obscured and how a vehicle can only be obscured when 25% covered.

So we have 1 rule saying you aren't obscured. Then another saying you get a cover save regardless of whether you are obscured.

The vehicle rules are more specific and apply.

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry due to their sheer size and bulk......

Then you have the exceptions to the rule, which are posted as to how a vehicle can get a cover save.

So vehicles don't get cover the way normal models do due to size. It then explains what that means. It means they are not obscured (and thus get no obscured dependent cover) unless they are 25% covered by terrain. However Jink or ruins or the terrain datasheets for example don't care about obscured they grant cover not dependent on obscured status. As the ruins quote proves. So why would a vehicle not get a cover save for being in ruins? I can see that it wouldn't be obscured the rules are clear on that. Now do you have anything that stops it having a cover save?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
From the first line under 'Cover Saves':

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover... Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save."

So "obscured" = "in cover" = "entitled to a cover save".

So then what the second point under 'Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets' basically says is, "Vehicles are not in cover and entitled to a cover save simply for being in terrain such as woods or ruins."

That has everything to do with terrain that grants a cover save to models for simply being in it, i.e. terrain such as woods and ruins.

Unless you disagree with the terms meanings relative to each other as I've given them (in which case please explain) I'm having trouble understanding the rules support for your position, so could you please explain?

Obscured means in cover and that entitles you to a cover save. It is not however the only way to get a cover save as Ruins and Jink prove. So you've made your leap of all human are men. All men are humans and all men have male genitalia. Thus by your logic all humans have male genitalia. Lets look at that sentence again:

So all obscured vehicles are entitled to a cover save but not all vehicles entitled to a cover save are obscured as ruins and jink prove. So you sentence shouldn't read:

Vehicles are not in cover and entitled to a cover save simply for being in terrain such as woods or ruins."

Vehicles are not in cover and entitled to a cover save granted by being Obscured simply for being in terrain such as woods or ruins."

I wish you all the sticky joy of your RAW victory over my obvious and entirely declared-in-advance common sense/RAI argument.

You didn't state you were arguing RaI in advance. You believe the intent is that ruins work entirely differently to all the datasheets? Is that your belief? Now we have agreed on RaW we can discuss RaI. Though I see it unlikely that either of us can convince the other on what we think the author intended.

 FlingitNow wrote:
You didn't state you were arguing RaI in advance. You believe the intent is that ruins work entirely differently to all the datasheets? Is that your belief? Now we have agreed on RaW we can discuss RaI. Though I see it unlikely that either of us can convince the other on what we think the author intended.

So you think the intention is to have a large tank sitting inside of a ruined building and firing from inside of it? I don't think so.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So vehicles don't get cover the way normal models do due to size. It then explains what that means. It means they are not obscured (and thus get no obscured dependent cover) unless they are 25% covered by terrain. However Jink or ruins or the terrain datasheets for example don't care about obscured they grant cover not dependent on obscured status. As the ruins quote proves. So why would a vehicle not get a cover save for being in ruins? I can see that it wouldn't be obscured the rules are clear on that. Now do you have anything that stops it having a cover save?

Yes this stops it from getting a cover save:

" Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You didn't state you were arguing RaI in advance. You believe the intent is that ruins work entirely differently to all the datasheets? Is that your belief? Now we have agreed on RaW we can discuss RaI. Though I see it unlikely that either of us can convince the other on what we think the author intended.

So you think the intention is to have a large tank sitting inside of a ruined building and firing from inside of it? I don't think so.

A Wraithknight can. Why not the much smaller tank or Imperial Knight?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So vehicles don't get cover the way normal models do due to size. It then explains what that means. It means they are not obscured (and thus get no obscured dependent cover) unless they are 25% covered by terrain. However Jink or ruins or the terrain datasheets for example don't care about obscured they grant cover not dependent on obscured status. As the ruins quote proves. So why would a vehicle not get a cover save for being in ruins? I can see that it wouldn't be obscured the rules are clear on that. Now do you have anything that stops it having a cover save?

Yes this stops it from getting a cover save:

" Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

Which part of that? I don't see cover saves mentioned at all in your quote. Are you saying Jink doesn't work for vehicles?

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You didn't state you were arguing RaI in advance. You believe the intent is that ruins work entirely differently to all the datasheets? Is that your belief? Now we have agreed on RaW we can discuss RaI. Though I see it unlikely that either of us can convince the other on what we think the author intended.

So you think the intention is to have a large tank sitting inside of a ruined building and firing from inside of it? I don't think so.

A Wraithknight can. Why not the much smaller tank or Imperial Knight?

Because the rules are nonsensical.

Logically, you'd think the ruins would work on a tank if they work on a Garg Creature, but they don't. It's the unit type rules that make the difference, even though it's head scratching why a Garg Creature can toe-in-ruin and get the save, but a vehicle can't.

Melevolence wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You didn't state you were arguing RaI in advance. You believe the intent is that ruins work entirely differently to all the datasheets? Is that your belief? Now we have agreed on RaW we can discuss RaI. Though I see it unlikely that either of us can convince the other on what we think the author intended.

So you think the intention is to have a large tank sitting inside of a ruined building and firing from inside of it? I don't think so.

A Wraithknight can. Why not the much smaller tank or Imperial Knight?

Because the rules are nonsensical.

Logically, you'd think the ruins would work on a tank if they work on a Garg Creature, but they don't. It's the unit type rules that make the difference, even though it's head scratching why a Garg Creature can toe-in-ruin and get the save, but a vehicle can't.

Actually as proven the rules work identically for Garg Creatures as for Vehicles. Your houserules may differ but Raaw it is the same.

what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

notredameguy10 wrote:
what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

So all cover saves are depend on being obscured? Is that what you're saying? Because your quote talks about obscured and makes no mentionsof cover saves.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

So all cover saves are depend on being obscured? Is that what you're saying? Because your quote talks about obscured and makes no mentionsof cover saves.

Because the ONLY cover saves vehicles CAN get are those from being obscured lol

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

So all cover saves are depend on being obscured? Is that what you're saying? Because your quote talks about obscured and makes no mentionsof cover saves.

Because the ONLY cover saves vehicles CAN get are those from being obscured lol

Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

So all cover saves are depend on being obscured? Is that what you're saying? Because your quote talks about obscured and makes no mentionsof cover saves.

Because the ONLY cover saves vehicles CAN get are those from being obscured lol

Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

*Sigh* please use some common sense.

It specifically says "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

If vehicles got cover from being in area terrain such as woods or ruins, then why would they even mention the fact that they need 25% obscured?

the 25% rule overrides any rules for area terrain.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

Sure, when Jink relies on obscuring by being in terrain.

Oh, wait... It doesn't.

Context matters.

Ruins: "Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured

Vehicles: "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedent".

I do not know how you can even argue this lol. Models (non vehicles) in ruins do not need to be 25% obscured to get a 4+ cover save. It then specifically says vehicles DO need to be 25% obscured.

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

Sure, when Jink relies on obscuring by being in terrain.

Oh, wait... It doesn't.

Context matters.

that's not what he claimed. He was arguing that vehicles couldn't get cover from rules like Jink and Ruins that give cover saves not reliant on being obscured.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

Sure, when Jink relies on obscuring by being in terrain.

Oh, wait... It doesn't.

Context matters.

that's not what he claimed. He was arguing that vehicles couldn't get cover from rules like Jink and Ruins that give cover saves not reliant on being obscured.

calm down there captain, obvious jink works as well. I was talking about terrain. And how about my quotes above?

Ruins: "Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured

Vehicles: "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedent".

I do not know how you can even argue this lol. Models (non vehicles) in ruins do not need to be 25% obscured to get a 4+ cover save. It then specifically says vehicles DO need to be 25% obscured.

notredameguy10 wrote:
Ruins: "Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured

Vehicles: "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedent".

I do not know how you can even argue this lol. Models (non vehicles) in ruins do not need to be 25% obscured to get a 4+ cover save. It then specifically says vehicles DO need to be 25% obscured.

Please learn to speak English before debating. Or if you know English please don't lie. Those rules do not say what you claim in the bottom paragraph at all. As has been explained in detail repeatedly now.

Do you have anything new to add or do you concede?

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Ruins: "Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured

Vehicles: "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedent".

I do not know how you can even argue this lol. Models (non vehicles) in ruins do not need to be 25% obscured to get a 4+ cover save. It then specifically says vehicles DO need to be 25% obscured.

Please learn to speak English before debating. Or if you know English please don't lie. Those rules do not say what you claim in the bottom paragraph at all. As has been explained in detail repeatedly now.

Do you have anything new to add or do you concede?

haha you are funny. That is exactly what it says.

1.) normally models need to be 25% obscured to get a cover save from terrain.
2.) Ruins add an additional rule that says in ruins you do not need to be 25% obscured and still get the cover save
3.) Then for vehicles it says that the 25% rule is still in effect even for ruins/forests

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

Sure, when Jink relies on obscuring by being in terrain.

Oh, wait... It doesn't.

Context matters.

that's not what he claimed. He was arguing that vehicles couldn't get cover from rules like Jink and Ruins that give cover saves not reliant on being obscured.

calm down there captain, obvious jink works as well. I was talking about terrain. And how about my quotes above?

Ruins: "Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured

Vehicles: "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedent".

I do not know how you can even argue this lol. Models (non vehicles) in ruins do not need to be 25% obscured to get a 4+ cover save. It then specifically says vehicles DO need to be 25% obscured.

It specifies what it specifies. The first quote states being obscured is irrelevant to whether you get a cover save from ruins. The second quote states that vehicles are only ever obscured when they are 25% covered.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

Sure, when Jink relies on obscuring by being in terrain.

Oh, wait... It doesn't.

Context matters.

that's not what he claimed. He was arguing that vehicles couldn't get cover from rules like Jink and Ruins that give cover saves not reliant on being obscured.

calm down there captain, obvious jink works as well. I was talking about terrain. And how about my quotes above?

Ruins: "Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured

Vehicles: "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedent".

I do not know how you can even argue this lol. Models (non vehicles) in ruins do not need to be 25% obscured to get a 4+ cover save. It then specifically says vehicles DO need to be 25% obscured.

It specifies what it specifies. The first quote states being obscured is irrelevant to whether you get a cover save from ruins. The second quote states that vehicles are only ever obscured when they are 25% covered.

You are THE only person i have every met in 15 years of gaming who thinks this. You are just to stubborn or thickskulled to admit you are wrong.

Vehicles NEED to be obscured to get a cover save from terrain. It literally says the 25% rule takes precedent over area terrain

He hasn't even said he plays it that way.

It IS what the rules say RAW

I have literally stated what the rules have said. You have repeatedly lied about what the rules state then claim rules that have only existed for 2 years have been agreed on for 15 (another example of your lies). Being so obviously dishonest does not help your case or make for a polite discussion. Now do you have anything to add that actually supports your case?

I find it hard to believe you are honestly still missing the point.

vehicle rule says you are not obscured. terrain rule says you get a save even if you are not obscured

 jokerkd wrote:
He hasn't even said he plays it that way.

It IS what the rules say RAW

They literally added an entire bullet point separate from everything else that says "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedent". It is obvious this was put to say area terrain does not affect vehicles.


It says: "At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain... for the vehicle to be in cover"... "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedent"

The 25% rule given above takes precedent meaning that overrides the regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
He hasn't even said he plays it that way.

It IS what the rules say RAW

They literally added an entire bullet point separate from everything else that says "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedent". It is obvious this was put to say area terrain does not affect vehicles.

I also believe that was the Intended purpose. though RAI can never really be known for sure. Flingit has given a possible reason that it should be as RAW (though i disagree)

I play it the same way you do. It's just not how the rules actually tell you to

 jokerkd wrote:
He hasn't even said he plays it that way.

It IS what the rules say RAW

I play by RaW unless my opponent will agree to the house rule that vehicles and MCs need to be 25% obscured to get a cover save from any terrain. I see no reason to treat MCs and Vehicles differently.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
He hasn't even said he plays it that way.

It IS what the rules say RAW

I see no reason to treat MCs and Vehicles differently.

Except MC are just larger humans/humanoids. They can quickly react and move behind a wall of ruins or trees of a forest. Vehicles cannot

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
He hasn't even said he plays it that way.

It IS what the rules say RAW

I see no reason to treat MCs and Vehicles differently.

Except MC are just larger humans/humanoids. They can quickly react and move behind a wall of ruins or trees of a forest. Vehicles cannot

Not all of them. Many are just vehicles with legs from a background perspective. But if that is how you and your group want to play, then go ahead and play by that House rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
He hasn't even said he plays it that way.

It IS what the rules say RAW

I see no reason to treat MCs and Vehicles differently.

Except MC are just larger humans/humanoids. They can quickly react and move behind a wall of ruins or trees of a forest. Vehicles cannot

Not all of them. Many are just vehicles with legs from a background perspective. But if that is how you and your group want to play, then go ahead and play by that House rule.

Lol i think the rule is terrible in general. I do not believe MC should get cover for having a single toe in a ruins either (although that is crystal clear in the rules currently that they do)

You also need to work on your people skills, as you were starting to sound like kind of a back there. "do you concede?" "do you concede?" "do you understand english?"

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
He hasn't even said he plays it that way.

It IS what the rules say RAW

I see no reason to treat MCs and Vehicles differently.

Except MC are just larger humans/humanoids. They can quickly react and move behind a wall of ruins or trees of a forest. Vehicles cannot

Not all of them. Many are just vehicles with legs from a background perspective. But if that is how you and your group want to play, then go ahead and play by that House rule.

Lol i think the rule is terrible in general. I do not believe MC should get cover for having a single toe in a ruins either (although that is crystal clear in the rules currently that they do)

Just as it is crystal clear that vehicles do too.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
He hasn't even said he plays it that way.

It IS what the rules say RAW

I see no reason to treat MCs and Vehicles differently.

Except MC are just larger humans/humanoids. They can quickly react and move behind a wall of ruins or trees of a forest. Vehicles cannot

Not all of them. Many are just vehicles with legs from a background perspective. But if that is how you and your group want to play, then go ahead and play by that House rule.

Lol i think the rule is terrible in general. I do not believe MC should get cover for having a single toe in a ruins either (although that is crystal clear in the rules currently that they do)

Just as it is crystal clear that vehicles do too.

Obviously not as you have numerous people arguing with you

 FlingitNow wrote:
Just as it is crystal clear that vehicles do too.

Yeup, because that is what the following means:

Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods
or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

Yeup. It definitely states that the Vehicle gets to use Terrain Cover Saves just by being in them.

Oh, wait... It says the exact opposite.

That's the same as implying that Jink is Area Terrain that you previously had posted.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

So all cover saves are depend on being obscured? Is that what you're saying? Because your quote talks about obscured and makes no mentionsof cover saves.

Because the ONLY cover saves vehicles CAN get are those from being obscured lol

Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

You took the link to Jink out of Context of the argument.

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Just as it is crystal clear that vehicles do too.

Yeup, because that is what the following means:

Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods
or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

Yeup. It definitely states that the Vehicle gets to use Terrain Cover Saves just by being in them.

Oh, wait... It says the exact opposite.

Nope it says nothing about cover saves. Again I have gone over this countless times. Do you have a coherent point based on the rules or just repeating things you know to be false over and over?

That's the same as implying that Jink is Area Terrain that you previously had posted.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

So all cover saves are depend on being obscured? Is that what you're saying? Because your quote talks about obscured and makes no mentionsof cover saves.

Because the ONLY cover saves vehicles CAN get are those from being obscured lol

Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

You took the link to Jink out of Context of the argument.

I never said jink was area terrain. Area terrain doesn't exist in 7th Ed. Jink however is just like Ruins and the Datasheets in that it gives a cover save not dependent on being obscured by terrain. So any claim that vehicles only get cover saves based on being obscured will cover Jink too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
He hasn't even said he plays it that way.

It IS what the rules say RAW

I see no reason to treat MCs and Vehicles differently.

Except MC are just larger humans/humanoids. They can quickly react and move behind a wall of ruins or trees of a forest. Vehicles cannot

Not all of them. Many are just vehicles with legs from a background perspective. But if that is how you and your group want to play, then go ahead and play by that House rule.

Lol i think the rule is terrible in general. I do not believe MC should get cover for having a single toe in a ruins either (although that is crystal clear in the rules currently that they do)

Just as it is crystal clear that vehicles do too.

Obviously not as you have numerous people arguing with you

Well just because people are arguing doesn't mean something isn't clear. Look at Coordinated Firepower in the new Tau codex. A very clear rule that people argue about a lot. Also note how no one is actually arguing against my rules with rules. They are making things up and then claiming the rules say those things often quoting the very rules that prove them wrong

 FlingitNow wrote:


Nope it says nothing about cover saves. Again I have gone over this countless times. Do you have a coherent point based on the rules or just repeating things you know to be false over and over?

Again, " The 25% rule given above takes precedence" overrides anything the ruins rule says about not needing to be obscured

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Nope it says nothing about cover saves. Again I have gone over this countless times. Do you have a coherent point based on the rules or just repeating things you know to be false over and over?

Again, " The 25% rule given above takes precedence" overrides anything the ruins rule says about not needing to be obscured

Seriously? Why this lie? Nothing in the vehicle rule prevents you from getting a cover save unless 25% obscured and if it did then Jink wouldn't work.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Nope it says nothing about cover saves. Again I have gone over this countless times. Do you have a coherent point based on the rules or just repeating things you know to be false over and over?

Again, " The 25% rule given above takes precedence" overrides anything the ruins rule says about not needing to be obscured

Seriously? Why this lie? Nothing in the vehicle rule prevents you from getting a cover save unless 25% obscured and if it did then Jink wouldn't work.

*sigh* Because Jink is a special ability that is specifically given to vehicles

And it is not a lie. BRB specifically says more specific rules override general rules.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Nope it says nothing about cover saves. Again I have gone over this countless times. Do you have a coherent point based on the rules or just repeating things you know to be false over and over?

Again, " The 25% rule given above takes precedence" overrides anything the ruins rule says about not needing to be obscured

Seriously? Why this lie? Nothing in the vehicle rule prevents you from getting a cover save unless 25% obscured and if it did then Jink wouldn't work.

*sigh* Because Jink is a special ability that is specifically given to vehicles

And it is not a lie. BRB specifically says more specific rules override general rules.

Cool the Jink rules don't call out vehicles any more specifically than the datasheets and ruins rules. It is a lie to claim that the vehicle rules say things you know they don't say as we've discussed that at length many times. So do the vehicle rules say you can get a cover save unless 25% obscured? This is a claim that has been made multiple times yet no one can quote a rule that states that.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Nope it says nothing about cover saves. Again I have gone over this countless times. Do you have a coherent point based on the rules or just repeating things you know to be false over and over?

Again, " The 25% rule given above takes precedence" overrides anything the ruins rule says about not needing to be obscured

Seriously? Why this lie? Nothing in the vehicle rule prevents you from getting a cover save unless 25% obscured and if it did then Jink wouldn't work.

*sigh* Because Jink is a special ability that is specifically given to vehicles

And it is not a lie. BRB specifically says more specific rules override general rules.

Cool the Jink rules don't call out vehicles any more specifically than the datasheets and ruins rules. It is a lie to claim that the vehicle rules say things you know they don't say as we've discussed that at length many times. So do the vehicle rules say you can get a cover save unless 25% obscured? This is a claim that has been made multiple times yet no one can quote a rule that states that.

You can think and play however you want, but you are wrong and everyone knows it. Good luck trying to pull that on anyone at a local gaming store, and tournaments already play that they do not get a cover save in area terrain.

You have also yet to explain the meaning of "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence." You keep skipping over that part every time

notredameguy, where in the rules for ruins does the rules say a model in ruins is obscured?

 Happyjew wrote:
notredameguy, where in the rules for ruins does the rules say a model in ruins is obscured?

How in the heck else do ruins block shots from hitting you then obscuring you

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Nope it says nothing about cover saves. Again I have gone over this countless times. Do you have a coherent point based on the rules or just repeating things you know to be false over and over?

Again, " The 25% rule given above takes precedence" overrides anything the ruins rule says about not needing to be obscured

Seriously? Why this lie? Nothing in the vehicle rule prevents you from getting a cover save unless 25% obscured and if it did then Jink wouldn't work.

*sigh* Because Jink is a special ability that is specifically given to vehicles

And it is not a lie. BRB specifically says more specific rules override general rules.

Cool the Jink rules don't call out vehicles any more specifically than the datasheets and ruins rules. It is a lie to claim that the vehicle rules say things you know they don't say as we've discussed that at length many times. So do the vehicle rules say you can get a cover save unless 25% obscured? This is a claim that has been made multiple times yet no one can quote a rule that states that.

You can think and play however you want, but you are wrong and everyone knows it. Good luck trying to pull that on anyone at a local gaming store, and tournaments already play that they do not get a cover save in area terrain.

You have also yet to explain the meaning of "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence." You keep skipping over that part every time

I have explained the meaning several times. It means what it says. Vehicles are only obscured by being 25% covered in the relevant facing and do not get obscured from simply being in terrain. It is a rule about how Vehicles get the obscured status and thus the cover saves gained from such a status, it does not interact with rules like Jink or Ruins which give cover saves regardless of obscured status. I really don't know how else to explain it to you? It is a rule about being obscured because it only talks about obscured and thus effects obscured. Seriously do you have any grasp of the English language?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
notredameguy, where in the rules for ruins does the rules say a model in ruins is obscured?

How in the heck else do ruins block shots from hitting you then obscuring you

By giving you a 4+ cover save. Nothing in the ruins rules says said save is based on being obscured in fact they state the exact opposite. If your interpretation is based on the rules meaning the exact opposite of what they say then you're on shaky ground...

Let me try to explain this again:

1.) Models IN ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured
2.) "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

Models in ruins are CONSIDERED OBSCURED no matter if only 1% is actually obscured instead of the normal 25%
Vehicles are not considered obscured for just being in ruins (1%-24%) but need to actually have 25% obscured.

I find it hilarious you believe ruins give a 4+ cover save, but don't actually obscure the target in any way

notredameguy10 wrote:
Let me try to explain this again:

1.) Models IN ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured
2.) "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

Models in ruins are CONSIDERED OBSCURED no matter if only 1% is actually obscured instead of the normal 25%
Vehicles are not considered obscured for just being in ruins (1%-24%) but need to actually have 25% obscured.

I find it hilarious you believe ruins give a 4+ cover save, but don't actually obscure the target in any way

Cool I need a rules quote to back up the underlined.

*sigh* if you can't understand simple rules idk what to tell you. I have more important things to do with my life (like attend medical school) than sit and argue with someone who clearly doesn't want to listen to a anyone but himself. Good luck with finding anyone to play against and have fun never playing in any tournaments anywhere.

You also keep failing, for a 5th time, to address "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence." Why would they put that all by itself if it doesn't mean vehicles cannot get a cover save when in ruins/woods

Oh btw, take a look at the picture example of the rhino in ruins in the BRB. It specifically shows a rhino, with a little bit in ruins, and that it does not get a cover save

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So vehicles don't get cover the way normal models do due to size. It then explains what that means. It means they are not obscured (and thus get no obscured dependent cover) unless they are 25% covered by terrain. However Jink or ruins or the terrain datasheets for example don't care about obscured they grant cover not dependent on obscured status. As the ruins quote proves. So why would a vehicle not get a cover save for being in ruins? I can see that it wouldn't be obscured the rules are clear on that. Now do you have anything that stops it having a cover save?

Yes this stops it from getting a cover save:

" Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

Which part of that? I don't see cover saves mentioned at all in your quote. Are you saying Jink doesn't work for vehicles?

The part about "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain" and "The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

if a vehicle is in terrain, the 25% rule takes precedence. so they do not get a cover save from the terrain that they are in unless they are 25% Obscured.

Why wouldn't Jink work for vehicles? I did not mention Jink.

notredameguy10 wrote:
*sigh* if you can't understand simple rules idk what to tell you. I have more important things to do with my life (like attend medical school) than sit and argue with someone who clearly doesn't want to listen to a anyone but himself. Good luck with finding anyone to play against and have fun never playing in any tournaments anywhere.

I assume this is an attempt to deflect the fact that you have no rules to support your position? You quoted a rule then made a statement in exact opposition to that rule I just asked you to support that statement.

I never struggle to find opponents nor tournaments. Every tournament I've been too has a massive list of houserules it is not uncommon.

Good luck in medical school. Hope you are better at that than you are understanding plan English.

Ill post this picture again Ahole

notredameguy10 wrote:
*sigh* if you can't understand simple rules idk what to tell you. I have more important things to do with my life (like attend medical school) than sit and argue with someone who clearly doesn't want to listen to a anyone but himself. Good luck with finding anyone to play against and have fun never playing in any tournaments anywhere.

You also keep failing, for a 5th time, to address "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence." Why would they put that all by itself if it doesn't mean vehicles cannot get a cover save when in ruins/woods

Actually he can understand simple rules.

Model is in a ruin. Model is not obscured. Model receives a cover save for simply being in the ruin.

If the rules said something along the lines of "Models in a ruin are treated as being obscured." then, the rules for vehicles would actually do something. However, it appears that the inclusion of that rule is simply a copy/paste from previous editions (wouldn't be the first time).

Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

No, that means it does not get a cover save for being obscured by the ruin. Models can get cover saves from ruins in two different methods: Being obscured, or being in. That picture says Rhino is not obscured. Therefore it does not qualify for the cover save granted by being obscured. Nowhere in that picture does it say the Rhino does not get a cover save. It simply says the Rhino is not obscured.

The rules do not say that vehicles have to be 25% obscured to get cover from terrain. It says that have to be 25% obscured to be obscured. Terrain can grant cover saves without model being obscured.

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says "hidden by intervening terrain"

Therefore, even if in ruins, if 25% of the vehicle is not "hidden by intervening terrain" then it is not "in cover"

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

those are not terrain dependent rules. They say nothing about being "in cover". They say you get a cover save.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

those are not terrain dependent rules

According you, a vehicle must be 25% obscured in the targeted facing to get a cover save. Therefore, if a vehicle Jinks, it is still not 25% obscured in the targeted facing and is not in cover.

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

those are not terrain dependent rules

According you, a vehicle must be 25% obscured in the targeted facing to get a cover save. Therefore, if a vehicle Jinks, it is still not 25% obscured in the targeted facing and is not in cover.

Changing my words again. I said

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says "hidden by intervening terrain"

Therefore, even if in ruins, if 25% of the vehicle is not "hidden by intervening terrain" then it is not "in cover"

IN COVER

Jink, stealth, shrouded say nothing about being in cover. You get a cover save. Ruins on the other hand you have to be "in ruins/cover"

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

Two things firstly no one has stated the Rhino is obscured, so it not being obscured disagrees with literally no ones argument so I have no idea why you think that matters?

Secondly the picture doesn't show us whether the Rhino is in the ruin or not and the caption makes no reference to whether the Rhino gets a cover save. So again the relevance of that pic is entirely lost on me.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

Two things firstly no one has stated the Rhino is obscured, so it not being obscured disagrees with literally no ones argument so I have no idea why you think that matters?

Secondly the picture doesn't show us whether the Rhino is in the ruin or not and the caption makes no reference to whether the Rhino gets a cover save. So again the relevance of that pic is entirely lost on me.

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

those are not terrain dependent rules

According you, a vehicle must be 25% obscured in the targeted facing to get a cover save. Therefore, if a vehicle Jinks, it is still not 25% obscured in the targeted facing and is not in cover.

Changing my words again. I said

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says "hidden by intervening terrain"

Therefore, even if in ruins, if 25% of the vehicle is not "hidden by intervening terrain" then it is not "in cover"

IN COVER

Jink, stealth, shrouded say nothing about being in cover. You get a cover save. Ruins on the other hand you have to be "in ruins/cover"

Again resorting to lies. Where do the ruins rules make ANY reference to being "in cover"?

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

those are not terrain dependent rules

According you, a vehicle must be 25% obscured in the targeted facing to get a cover save. Therefore, if a vehicle Jinks, it is still not 25% obscured in the targeted facing and is not in cover.

Changing my words again. I said

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says "hidden by intervening terrain"

Therefore, even if in ruins, if 25% of the vehicle is not "hidden by intervening terrain" then it is not "in cover"

IN COVER

Jink, stealth, shrouded say nothing about being in cover. You get a cover save. Ruins on the other hand you have to be "in ruins/cover"

Again resorting to lies. Where do the ruins rules make ANY reference to being "in cover"?

hahahahahaahha

now you are trying to say being in ruins is not being in cover. Really think about that for a second.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

Two things firstly no one has stated the Rhino is obscured, so it not being obscured disagrees with literally no ones argument so I have no idea why you think that matters?

Secondly the picture doesn't show us whether the Rhino is in the ruin or not and the caption makes no reference to whether the Rhino gets a cover save. So again the relevance of that pic is entirely lost on me.

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

Why does being in cover matter?

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

Two things firstly no one has stated the Rhino is obscured, so it not being obscured disagrees with literally no ones argument so I have no idea why you think that matters?

Secondly the picture doesn't show us whether the Rhino is in the ruin or not and the caption makes no reference to whether the Rhino gets a cover save. So again the relevance of that pic is entirely lost on me.

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

Why does being in cover matter?

Why does being in cover matter? Because the rules for vehicles say if you are not in cover you do not get a cover save.

I honestly cannot tell if you are just trolling or you are really being that dense

hahahahahaahha 

now you are trying to say being in ruins is not being in cover. Really think about that for a second.

You know I'm just saying what the rules say right? Rather than raking rules terms like "in cover" and saying they apply to rules that never mention that term.

 FlingitNow wrote:

hahahahahaahha 

now you are trying to say being in ruins is not being in cover. Really think about that for a second.

You know I'm just saying what the rules say right? Rather than raking rules terms like "in cover" and saying they apply to rules that never mention that term.

The facts are that (all directly from BRB):

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry due to their sheer size and bulk..."

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence"

There is a picture example show a vehicles in ruins saying it is not obscured as it is less than 25% covered

That is all the evidence you need.

Why does being in cover matter? Because the rules for vehicles say if you are not in cover you do not get a cover save.

So answer these questions:

1) Are you sure vehicles can not get a cover save unless they are "in cover"?
2) is a jinking vehicle "in cover"?
3) where does it state a vehicle can not get a cover save if not "in cover"?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602616.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/636409.page
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?395142-Ruins-Cover-save
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/500624.page

The list goes on. Every time the consensus is I am right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Why does being in cover matter? Because the rules for vehicles say if you are not in cover you do not get a cover save.

So answer these questions:

1) Are you sure vehicles can not get a cover save unless they are "in cover"?
2) is a jinking vehicle "in cover"?
3) where does it state a vehicle can not get a cover save if not "in cover"?

1.) For terrain purposes, correct
2.) Jinking is completely different
3.) lol now you make me laugh. "Oh my infantry isn't actually in cover, but he get a cover save from terrain!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
5 More all agreeing with me

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660649.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606785.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/516577.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/625541.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/600659.page

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

hahahahahaahha 

now you are trying to say being in ruins is not being in cover. Really think about that for a second.

You know I'm just saying what the rules say right? Rather than raking rules terms like "in cover" and saying they apply to rules that never mention that term.

The facts are that (all directly from BRB):

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry due to their sheer size and bulk..."

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence"

There is a picture example show a vehicles in ruins saying it is not obscured as it is less than 25% covered

That is all the evidence you need.

So we have a quote saying Vehicles are different from infantry.

We have a quote about how they get to be in cover and how that is dependent on obscured.

Then we have a quote saying that to be obscured they must be 25%obscured.

What you've not posted is the ruins rules and what you've consistently failed to do is show a link between these rules and the cover save provided by ruins.

I am just going to keep posting all of these topics on this discussion until you stop. I advise you to spend a little time on them.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660649.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606785.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/516577.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/625541.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/600659.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602616.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/636409.page
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?395142-Ruins-Cover-save
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/500624.page

1.) For terrain purposes, correct 
2.) Jinking is completely different 
3.) lol now you make me laugh. "Oh my infantry isn't actually in cover, but he get a cover save from terrain!"

Argument by popularity aside (following that method it is RaW to not always measure when you move and move 6.5"+ with horde armies because that is what happens on tables all over the world).

So you've changed your stance on 1 already. Why is Jink completely different? What is different about it?

So on 3 you again go back to the claim that you don't have to support your stance with rules. So are you actually going to support your stance or are you going to continue with the personal attacks and broad sweeping claims that have no basis in the rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I assume this is you conceding?

You are wrong. Get over it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660649.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606785.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/516577.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/625541.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/600659.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602616.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/636409.page
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?395142-Ruins-Cover-save
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/500624.page

Do you have an actual rule argument, or just "You're wrong."?

 Happyjew wrote:
Do you have an actual rule argument, or just "You're wrong."?

If you want an actual argument spend some time and read those threads. The onus is on you as 90% of people disagree with you.

Actually as Fling and I have provided rules to support our arguments, the onus is on you to provide rules that dispute us. Or mark your posts as HYWPI.

 Happyjew wrote:
Actually as Fling and I have provided rules to support our arguments, the onus is on you to provide rules that dispute us. Or mark your posts as HYWPI.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660649.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606785.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/516577.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/625541.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/600659.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602616.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/636409.page
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?395142-Ruins-Cover-save
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/500624.page

Every single one has all the arguments against you that are needed.


This thread can be locked as this has been discussed over a dozen times and every time the result is the same

This is quite sad. You don't have to be so angry that you lost a rules debate. Either accept it and move on. Silently leave the thread to hide your embarrassment. Or man up concede you got it wrong and move on with new found respect from me and others.

 FlingitNow wrote:
This is quite sad. You don't have to be so angry that you lost a rules debate. Either accept it and move on. Silently leave the thread to hide your embarrassment. Or man up concede you got it wrong and move on with new found respect from me and others.

Sorry buddy, it is kind of laughable how much you are in denial.
I have provided all evidence necessary, including 9 separate discussion on the topic, all of which refute you. Sorry buddy, but I win

Except you have not disproven that a model can have a cover save without being obscured.

Im sorry notredameguy, but consistent appeals to popular opinion are not a valid argument.

"In cover" is actually defined in the rulebook as being obscured. (Shooting phase, cover saves, first sentence)

So when a terrain datasheet gives you a cover save, it does not, in fact, mean you are "in cover"

 Happyjew wrote:
Except you have not disproven that a model can have a cover save without being obscured.

It does not say it has to be obscured. It says that the 25% of the model needs to be blocked by terrain. It does not matter if it is in ruins or not. If the ruins do not block LOS by 25% or more you do not get a cover save

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
This is quite sad. You don't have to be so angry that you lost a rules debate. Either accept it and move on. Silently leave the thread to hide your embarrassment. Or man up concede you got it wrong and move on with new found respect from me and others.

Sorry buddy, it is kind of laughable how much you are in denial. Does your life stink that much that you need to feel like a keyboard warrior?
I have provided all evidence necessary, including 9 separate discussion on the topic, all of which refute you. Sorry buddy, but I win

Keep it civil

 jokerkd wrote:
Im sorry notredameguy, but consistent appeals to popular opinion are not a valid argument.

"In cover" is actually defined in the rulebook as being obscured. (Shooting phase, cover saves, first sentence)

So when a terrain datasheet gives you a cover save, it does not, in fact, mean you are "in cover"

lol it is not popular opinion. All of these go into great detail on this debate and all come to the same conclusion as me.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660649.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606785.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/516577.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/625541.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/600659.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602616.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/636409.page
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?395142-Ruins-Cover-save
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/500624.page

And as far as RAI and hiwpi go, so do I.

We are taking a rule we think is obviously worded wrong and fixing it the way we think best.
Flingit is taking the rule at face value.

The problem is you cannot see it that way. You think we are the ones taking it at face value

I think this has gone around in circles for long enough.


By RAW, FlingitNow seems to have it correct - vehicles don't count as being obscured just for being in terrain, but terrain that grants a cover save without caring if the model is obscured or not will bypass that rule. Whether this is intentional or the result of sloppy wording is anyone's guess.

For how to actually play it... as usual, discuss with your opponent if in doubt.