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.

Where does it say obscurement is the only way for vehicles to get a cover save? I was trying to figure this one out. Please list the arguement where the vehicle must be obscured to allow a cover save, even though the shield of sanguinius says "the librarian and any unit within 6" recieve a 5+ cover save."

I would think that any unit would include vehicles, and the codex was applying an exception to that rule on obscured vehicles or any other unit for that matter.

And yes ive read the passage that says
"if the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may make a cover save against it,........ etc"

This is only refering to obscured targets so doesnt make sense that this applies, since we are not talking about a obscured target using this power (we are talking about any unit). I cant find where it says the target must be obscured to recieve a cover save.

Enlighten me please.

It doesnt state that at all, please do a search.

What the rules DO say, on page 62, is that if you want to USE (this is not the same as "have") a cover save against something other than wounds, you must be obscured. "If obscured.....against penetrating and glancing hits"

So nothing stops vehicles *having* a cover save, however cover saves, as defined on pages 20/21 of the rulebook, ONLY work against wounds. ONLY WOUNDS.

So if you want to use them against something other than wounds you need permission to do so. Page 62 is the only place you gain permission to USE them against something other than wounds, and this REQUIRES you to be obscured first.

Essentially the RaW arguement is that you do indeed get the 5+ cover save and you are free to use it to negate any wounds the vehicle suffers.

What they are saying is the only mechanic that allows you to roll a save against a penetrating or glancing hit requires you to be obscured to do so.

So basically you have to find a rule that allows you to take that save against penetrating and glancing hits. I guessing you won't be able to.

Have a read here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/285934.page

Same situation (just with Storm Caller) and nosferatu1001 as usual explains it perfectly.

Have a read here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/285934.page

Same situation (just with Storm Caller) and nosferatu1001 as usual explains it perfectly.

Yeah Nos is as usual both bang on about the RaW and explains it clearly and concisely.

The linked thread has a pretty good summary of the back and forth.

I'll just add that INAT and most tourneys allow for vehicles to use any cover saves they happen to have.

kartofelkopf wrote:The linked thread has a pretty good summary of the back and forth.

I'll just add that INAT and most tourneys allow for vehicles to use any cover saves they happen to have.

Really? Because I don't see anything in the INAT FAQ About Storm Caller or Shield of Sangy giving Cover saves to vehicles. Your claim that the INAT and "Most tourneys" (Do you GO to most of them?) has absolutely NO backing in Reality.

Gwar! Learn to read before you insert your foot into your mouth.

RB.62B.01 – Q: Does 50% of a vehicle‟s facing actually have to be physically obscured for it to claim a cover save in all cases? Or when it comes to area terrain does it just need 50% of the facing within the terrain to get the save?
A: Except where a vehicle is granted a save by special means (such as an Ork Kustom Force Field or Space Wolves „Stormcaller‟, for example), it needs to have at least 50% of its body physically obscured in order for it to claim a cover save [clarification].
Ref: RB.51B.01

The INAT answer you gave makes no mention of them using the save against Hits, just that they get to "have" (claim) a cover save.

This cover save only works against wounds therefore.

Further, since INAT is the most widely used FAQ, I feel fairly confident in my claim. I'd ask you to show ANY tournament where cover saves for vehicles by means of Stormcaller, etc... was disallowed.

I'll wait...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The INAT answer you gave makes no mention of them using the save against Hits, just that they get to "have" (claim) a cover save.

This cover save only works against wounds therefore.

well, Gwar!'s statement was that the INAT didn't address giving cover saves to vehicles through use of Stormcaller... so, my post is still accurate.

Either way, the point stands- INAT events allow for vehicles to have (and use) their cover saves. "Claim" here most likely means it in the conventional sense of being able to use, as it is context of "obscured" saves.

Most widely used FAQ...in the US.

It isnt used in any UK tournament I am aware of, and our local tournaments dont allow it - would have to check on Bristol et al.

I'd wager it's still the most widely used FAQ even if it is only used in the US... given that there's no European alternative I can find.

Forgive me if the local customs of a single store you happen to play at do not make for the most convincing counterpoint.

As soon as the ETC updates their Clarifications for the 2010 series, we can check that out-- although I doubt it'll be addressed, as it is so widely accepted a practice that most places (in my experience) don't feel the need to clarify.

Condescending much? One persons unsubstantiated claim (yours) is as valid as any other.

It isnt one lcoal store (why assume its a store? assumption much?) but one of the largest gaming clubs outside london, and our tournaments regularly have 200+ people attending from all over the UK. ANd ours arent the only ones. And none use the INAT.

Sometimes I wish they would

I don't think Warhammer World uses the INAT FAQ either.

And when the Largest GW Store in the World, The HQ of GW and the Birthplace of the game doesn't use it, I don't see why you should either.

Wait... so they don't allow the INAT, or they don't allow vehicles to take Stormcaller cover saves?

And my claims are not unsubstantiated- I've cited Adepticon (the LARGEST 40k event in the world) and their FAQ (the most widely used FAQ in the world [to be fair, its use is most common in the US... but, still the most widely used FAQ]).

You mentioned your "local tourney" which may very well be awesome. I don't know-- and you didn't say before. What tourney is this that "regularly have 200+" attendees?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:I don't think Warhammer World uses the INAT FAQ either.

And when the Largest GW Store in the World, The HQ of GW and the Birthplace of the game doesn't use it, I don't see why you should either.

And this would be pertinent if they disallowed the vehicles taking saves...

Do they?

I'm not sure how arguing the validity of the faq is helping.
RAW vehicles don't benefit from a usable save, and the faq does not explicitly clarify the situation.

It's a stretch at best to use an interpretation ('claim a cover save' must = 'have a cover save usable as if obscured') of a faq clarification as justification to break from the raw (and in my opinion clear rai).
Play that way if you wish, just be aware that the RAW is fairly clearly against that conclusion.

I've not made any attempt to argue the earlier points made by Gwar! or Nos-- their interpretation of RAW is an understandable one- I disagree with it, but that has been addressed ad nauseum in the linked thread.

I was just pointing out to OP that, by the largest consensus one can support with facts/links/citations, RAP generally allows for vehicles to use any save they have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:

It's a stretch at best to use an interpretation ('claim a cover save' must = 'have a cover save usable as if obscured') of a faq clarification as justification to break from the raw (and in my opinion clear rai).

But it is in the context of the much vaunted "obscured" rules for 50% coverage. The INAT writer uses "claim" for both the 'obscured' and the other (stormcaller etc) saves.

Play that way if you wish, just be aware that the RAW is fairly clearly against that conclusion.

And play without it if you wish, just be aware that the RAP is fairly clearly against your interpretation.

kartofelkopf wrote:And play without it if you wish, just be aware that the RAP is fairly clearly against your interpretation.

I play it as that they do not get the cover save.

Therefore RaP is that they do not get it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It doesnt state that at all, please do a search.

What the rules DO say, on page 62, is that if you want to USE (this is not the same as "have") a cover save against something other than wounds, you must be obscured. "If obscured.....against penetrating and glancing hits"

So if you want to use them against something other than wounds you need permission to do so. Page 62 is the only place you gain permission to USE them against something other than wounds, and this REQUIRES you to be obscured first.

This doesnt imply though anything about only obscurement giving vehicles cover saves. It is only talking about obscurement. That is why pg 62 says "If the target is obscured, suffers a hit, it may take a cover save" I understand that this is what it means. And agree that pretty much under every circumstance, this applies.

What it does not say, is that ... the target MUST be obscured to recieve a cover save. That could imply there are other methods and in fact there is..... fast skimmers going flat out. Then you come to something that a codex says, and while codex's i dont believe superseed rulebook, this rule is saying it grants a cover save to any unit. That would imply that any unit.... regardless of other restrictions such as area terrain, etc, which would also logically, at least for me at the moment include obscurment.

Gwar! wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:And play without it if you wish, just be aware that the RAP is fairly clearly against your interpretation.

I play it as that they do not get the cover save.

Therefore RaP is that they do not get it.

Fun with semantics!

Either way, you were wrong in your second post, and you keep bringing up irrelevant points. Does Warhammer World allow cover saves from Stormcaller?

Does any existing FAQ (that is actually used in tournament play... thanks, but I'll pass on the Gwar!faq) disallow cover saves from Stormcaller?

Please, show a link- otherwise, can we drop the RAP argument, as it is clearly a losing battle for the "RAW" literalists?

kartofelkopf wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:And play without it if you wish, just be aware that the RAP is fairly clearly against your interpretation.

I play it as that they do not get the cover save.

Therefore RaP is that they do not get it.

Fun with semantics!

Either way, you were wrong in your second post, and you keep bringing up irrelevant points. Does Warhammer World allow cover saves from Stormcaller?

Does any existing FAQ (that is actually used in tournament play... thanks, but I'll pass on the Gwar!faq) disallow cover saves from Stormcaller?

Please, show a link- otherwise, can we drop the RAP argument, as it is clearly a losing battle for the "RAW" literalists?

RaP is not RaPeranFAQ, it's the Rules as Played.

I play it that they Don't get the cover save. Therefore, RaP is that they do not.

Okay... and, I used the qualifier "generally."

Your specific case does not constitute a general application of RAP.

The LARGEST 40K EVENT IN THE WORLD, that event's widely-used FAQ, GW's 'ard Boyz tournaments, and countless other tournaments the world over DO constitute a general application of RAP.

Please, show me even a SINGLE event that specifically disallows vehicle cover saves in their FAQ/clarifying documents.

Here is how I see it. to get a cover save.

infantry... area terrain/intervenening models 50%=cover save

vehicles.... obscurement/ covering 50% facing=cover save

Something that says you get a cover save otherwise does not concern itself what it takes to get these saves, otherwise the ability shield of sanguinus would not allow infantry cover saves becuase the other factors were not filled.

Natfka wrote:This doesnt imply though anything about only obscurement giving vehicles cover saves. It is only talking about obscurement. That is why pg 62 says "If the target is obscured, suffers a hit, it may take a cover save" I understand that this is what it means. And agree that pretty much under every circumstance, this applies.

What it does not say, is that ... the target MUST be obscured to recieve a cover save. That could imply there are other methods and in fact there is..... fast skimmers going flat out. Then you come to something that a codex says, and while codex's i dont believe superseed rulebook, this rule is saying it grants a cover save to any unit. That would imply that any unit.... regardless of other restrictions such as area terrain, etc, which would also logically, at least for me at the moment include obscurment.

Understood. Unfortunately you entirely ignored what I wrote.

I agree that stormcaller et al GIVE the vehicle a cover save. So, a unit within 6" of Njal for example would get a 5+ cover save. Agreed.

I agree on this point - 100%. Unfortunately my argument has NOTHING to say about *having* a cover save, but *using* said save against something that isnt a Wound.

Page 62 is the ONLY PLACE IN THE ENTIRE RULEBOOK THAT LETS YOU ********USE********* A COVER SAVE AGAINST HITS

Note *USE* not *HAVE*. Cover saves are USED against wounds by default, therefore in order to USE a cover save against hits you need permission to do so.

Please read and understand I am using *USE* very carefully, the argument has NOTHING to do with *having* a cover save.

Yeah, I tried this also . From what I gather the RaW side will Maintain that vehicles get a save that you cannot use. Ask them the point of having a save you can't use and the only answer is "gw wrote it wrong and we want to make sure it stays, and gets played that way. KFF, SL, Blind barrage" There is no point to this other than to say "haha screw you, some clerk wrote the big book before there were any psychics that gave vehicles cover saves. so at the time of BBB conception A vehicle needed a majority in cover (see also obscured) in order to use the save. This in my opinion is a huge irony because anyone who claims to be from a RaW standpoint is interjecting 'iff' (if and only if, in logicspeak) instead of 'if' into the beginning to the BBB ruling. In my opinon, at the moment that you change the wording (or interpretation of the wording) of the rules as writtin in order to defend your stance on the rules as writtin, you open a huge gate of hypocracy and circular logic. I think that's why there is no RaI argument to this discussion, just two RaW sides trying to out lawyer each other

Kartelkopf - also you claims *are* unsubstantiated, as you have claimed INAT is the most widely used FAQ in the world without any evidence to back it up.

Kiwidru - apart from appalling grammar, you are also hideously wrong. SW psychic powers since 3rd ed gave vehicles a usable cover save, KFF gives vehicles a usable cover save as it specifies "obscured" and it was a 4th ed codex, etc.

Stop arguing (and insulting) the posters please, or else you will be reported for breach of dakka rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kartelkopf - also you claims *are* unsubstantiated, as you have claimed INAT is the most widely used FAQ in the world without any evidence to back it up.

Kiwidru - apart from appalling grammar, you are also hideously wrong. SW psychic powers since 3rd ed gave vehicles a usable cover save, KFF gives vehicles a usable cover save as it specifies "obscured" and it was a 4th ed codex, etc.

Stop arguing (and insulting) the posters please, or else you will be reported for breach of dakka rules.

Moderator Nosferatu to the rescue...

And, what more substantiation do you want? Adepticon uses INAT, the 'ard Boyz used it last year, Bolter Beach is using a modified INAT, many local stores use it, etc...

My only claim is that it is the most widely used. The only way for you to refute that claim is to show a more widely used FAQ (or to show that no FAQs are used anywhere-- a clearly false premise).

Good luck.

kartofelkopf wrote:My only claim is that it is the most widely used. The only way for you to refute that claim is to show a more widely used FAQ (or to show that no FAQs are used anywhere-- a clearly false premise).

Good luck.

The GW FAQs are used more than the INAT.

On an iPhone, and you insult my grammer and then tell me you are gonna report me for insulting people??!! So that's like a save I can't use, typical. Isn't shield the same wording as storm caller? Last I checked the storm caller thread looked exactly like this one... Has there been a breakthrough?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Page 62 is the ONLY PLACE IN THE ENTIRE RULEBOOK THAT LETS YOU ********USE********* A COVER SAVE AGAINST HITS

.

This isnt true. fast skimmers are not handled on page 62.