Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither power obscures the vehicle.

Twalks wrote:Neither power obscures the vehicle.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Yup, yes you did

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

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

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

Gwar! wrote:IGNORE MEEEE!

Sigged. Maybe.

Because Squads did not exist in the SW codex?

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

Also on page 62 of the rulebook it states:

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

Capitalization is mine.


So cover saves are used for vehicles not just wounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalization is mine.


So cover saves are used for vehicles not just wounds

Try reading the rules first.

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

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

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

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

Capitalization is mine.


So cover saves are used for vehicles not just wounds

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my case:

vehicles and cover, pg62- "at least 50% of facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vehicles do not have wounds last I checked

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

vehicles and cover, pg 62- "if the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, EXACTLY LIKE a non-vehicle model would do against a would"

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

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

vehicles and cover, pg 62- "if the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, EXACTLY LIKE a non-vehicle model would do against a would"

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

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

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

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

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

And you have a rules quote to back this up?

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

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

pg 21 basicly says that cover saves are saving throws.

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

Neither says anything about wounds.

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


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

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

pg 21 basicly says that cover saves are saving throws.

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

Neither says anything about wounds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against around"

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

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