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.

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

Kudos to you, sir.

kartofelkopf wrote:

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

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

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

So, let's go down the steps.

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

Those are the NORMAL rules for a vehicle in cover.

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Kudos to you, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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