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.

Hello all,

Had a game yesterday with a Space wolf opponent and a question game up about the ‘Storm Caller’ power. Upon successful test “…he and all friendly squads within 6” benefit from 5+ cover.”

I was my understanding that this would not apply to vehicles, because it says squads. He took it that is can. Need clarification.

* No disrespect to S. You had me with your Thunder cav scout combo – good list to take down the LR spam. Just looking to get an FAQ… so my librarian can turn into a rune priest (Oh snap, land raiders that carry cover…)

It says "Squads" so Squads it is.
No Vehicles

[Just to to annoy TFG, Space Wolves don't have Squads they have Packs.]

"Squads" is not defined in the rulebook, and there are no squads in the SW codex

Squads are given as examples of units, and vehicels are units - so you can make an argument that it should affect vehicles as well.

However, while it may give the vehicle a 5+ cover save the vehicle is entirely unable to use it: page 20/21 states cover saves are taken against *wounds only*, and vehicles are only given permission to use a cover save against a *hit* if they are OBSCURED first.

So it is academic - even if you define vehicles as units they still cannot use the cover save.

what nosferatu said

Or you can simply say that it doesn't work because Squads don't exist.

A finer point of the rules I may have overlooked in the game.

So basically, vehicels never actually get cover saves. They get Obsured saves and because the Storm caller doesn't grant obsured (Say like the Ork KFF or smoke launchers from the new codexs).

Cool, any chance of getting that one added to the FAQ list?

Once Gwar is back from "Vacation" probably

I actually kind of disagree with the "vehicles ever get cover saves" idea.

They never get "cover." This means that they don't get cover in the normal way, as defined in the rules for vehicles in the BRB.

However, as the result of getting "obscured" status is indeed labeled a "cover save" they can indeed have a cover save.

If a piece of wargear gives a "cover save" then it should indeed pass to vehicles.

If a piece of wargear gives "cover" it would not.

If the wargear gives "obscured" then it is specifically for vehicles, and not for other units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anpu42 wrote:Once Gwar is back from "Vacation" probably

P.S.: I think he's really valuable to the community, but you don't need Gwar to know the rules.

Obscured is a type of cover save. It is a subset of the cover save. I'm not convinced this interpretation is correct.

It states squads which has no definition in the rules and the SW codex has no squads. Hence RAW means nothing gets a save, RAI? It is not clear they have probably used the word squad to differentiate from unit which includes vehicles. Or it simply is a typo and they meant unit.

Obscured is not a type of cover save, it is a condition that grants a cover save.

Anpu42 wrote:Once Gwar is back from "Vacation" probably

P.S.: I think he's really valuable to the community, but you don't need Gwar to know the rules.

Obscured is not a type of cover save, it is a condition that grants a cover save.

It doesn't state that in the rules. It states that they react differently to cover and mentions exceptions to the normal cover rules. None of these exceptions state that a vehicle cannot benefit from a cover save granted from a peice of wargear or special rule or psychic power.

FlingitNow wrote:

Obscured is not a type of cover save, it is a condition that grants a cover save.

It doesn't state that in the rules. It states that they react differently to cover and mentions exceptions to the normal cover rules. None of these exceptions state that a vehicle cannot benefit from a cover save granted from a peice of wargear or special rule or psychic power.

Which is exactly what I wrote previously. I don't see how the quoted sentence contradicts that.

willydstyle wrote:Obscured is not a type of cover save, it is a condition that grants a cover save.

Not quite: Obscured is a condition that grants the ability to use cover saves against *hits* exactly as if they were wounds. Otherwise you only have permission, from page 20/21, to use them against wounds - useless for vehicles.

It only grants a cover save if "obscured" is derived from a piece of wargear, otherwise you receive the same cover save that any other unit type would do (e.g. 4+ from woods, etc)

If you are not obscured it is entirely possible for you to be granted a cover save but be entirely unable to use it: a 3 vehicle squadron with one model within 6" of the KFF Big Mek does receive a 5+ Cover save, but as only one model is obscured NONE of the squadron can actually use the 5+ cover save against hits.

Flingitnow: unless you are obscured you can never use a cover save against wounds. As this is a permissive ruleset in general it does not say this, hence why I pointed out page 20/21 and page 62, which define how cover saves are generally taken (against wounds only) and how they may be taken in a way that is relevant to vehicles (against hits) by being obscured. No other permission exists anywhere I have found, including every codex, that specifically lets vehicels take cover saves without ALSO being obscured.

Flingitnow: unless you are obscured you can never use a cover save against wounds. As this is a permissive ruleset in general it does not say this, hence why I pointed out page 20/21 and page 62, which define how cover saves are generally taken (against wounds only) and how they may be taken in a way that is relevant to vehicles (against hits) by being obscured. No other permission exists anywhere I have found, including every codex, that specifically lets vehicels take cover saves without ALSO being obscured.

The rule states in the first paragraph on page 20 that saves are made against damage. Not specifically wounds, hence there is no reason to beleive Vehicles can't take normal cover saves granted by wargear/power etc.

Read the context it is in - vehicles have not yet even been introduced, and everything on both pages deals with resolving saves against wounding hits. You cannot wound a vehicle.

If there is "no reason to believe" you cant use it against hits, you are basically stating page 62 is entirely superfluous?

If there is "no reason to believe" you cant use it against hits, you are basically stating page 62 is entirely superfluous?

No I'm just taking what they've actually said rather than making bold judgements on what they mean. Page 62 is clearly there to stop vehiocles from getting normal cover saves in the normal manner (i.e. from terrain). Whether or not it is ALSO there to expand that to stop vehicles from getting cover saves provided by special rules or powers is up to interpretation and not cut and dried as posters on this thread are tring to make out.

For me the RAW means vehicles can take coversaves from stuff that gives them a 5+ cover (irrespective of the word Obscured being in the definition). I'd also say this was RAI but that is another argument and in this case the use of the word squad makes it very unclear as to what is covered. But I wouldn't rule a Vehicle out simply because the word obscured isn't used.

The RAW does not mean that.

Read page 20, first few paragraphs: everything in there only mentions models in squads, wounds, etc. EVERY bit of *context*, which you are *ignoring*, means that page 20/21 is only talking about saving wounds, and not *hits*

Unless you are "obscured" there is no provision in the main rules, or any codex (such as Ork KFF), that lets you take a Cover Save against *hits* as if they were wounds.

1) permisision is given on page 20/21 to take saves against wounds only
2) page 62 lets you take cover saves against hits, but ONLY as a consequence of having the status "obscured"

There is no other permission, so that means you cannot do it. Your "RAW" ignores the rules on page 20/21 and pretends they deal with hits in addition to what they actually cover - wounds.

It is *irrelevant* where the cover save comes from - unless it gives you "obscured" status you may NOT take it against hits.

If you wish to show otherwise, please show actual rules ginving you permission outside of page 62 "obscured"

1) permisision is given on page 20/21 to take saves against wounds only
2) page 62 lets you take cover saves against hits, but ONLY as a consequence of having the status "obscured"

Sorry but neither allows you to make cover saves from hits and I've never said you could.

1) Page 20 states you can make (cover) saves from damage. At that point you have only been dealing with infantry hence the rest of the rules are describing how infantry take cover saves, and in which case damage refers to wounds.

2) List excepts to the rules on pages 20-24 to take cover saves from DAMAGE and how that relates to vehicles (i.e. in rolls on the Vehicle Damage Table).

It is *irrelevant* where the cover save comes from - unless it gives you "obscured" status you may NOT take it against hits.

If you wish to show otherwise, please show actual rules ginving you permission outside of page 62 "obscured"

Even if you are obscured you can not take save throws from hits, cover or otherwise, only from damage. I've shown the rules I've talked about. You are yet to come up with any rules to back up your point of view. I have never seen a rule in the book giving cover saves from hits as you persist is the case.

Read page 62 Vehicles take cover saves in the same way as infantry except for the given exceptions...

FlingitNow wrote:Sorry but neither allows you to make cover saves from hits and I've never said you could

I was using "hits" as a short cut instead of stating "penetrating or glancing HITS" as this was quicker, I assumed you understood context - a glancing/penetrating hit is the equivalent of a wounding hit for infantry. Page 62 gives you specific permission to take saves against glancing or penetrating HITS exactly as if you were taking saves against wounds.

FlingitNow wrote:
1) Page 20 states you can make (cover) saves from damage. At that point you have only been dealing with infantry hence the rest of the rules are describing how infantry take cover saves, and in which case damage refers to wounds.

No, actually page 21 "cover saves" states "damage", however this is irrelevant as this is all part of "taking saving throws" which deals exclusively with WOUNDS. EVERYTHING after this point is, via context, talking about WOUNDS. Nothing in page 20/21 lets you take saves against glancing / penetrating hits.

Following yet?

FlingitNow wrote:2) List excepts to the rules on pages 20-24 to take cover saves from DAMAGE and how that relates to vehicles (i.e. in rolls on the Vehicle Damage Table).

No, it states how vehicles become OBSCURED, and how OBSCURED lets you take cover saves against glance/pen hits as if they were wounds. Remember you don't roll ont he damage chart until AFTER you have failed a cover save from obscured.

I love that you capped damage, given the rules dont deal with that. Cover saves are taking against glance/pen hits if you are obscured, the damage table is not improtant at this point.

FlingitNow wrote:Even if you are obscured you can not take save throws from hits, cover or otherwise, only from damage. I've shown the rules I've talked about. You are yet to come up with any rules to back up your point of view. I have never seen a rule in the book giving cover saves from hits as you persist is the case.

No, you haven't shown any rules - you have misquoted them, and pretended they said "damage" on page 62, however it doesn't. If you have never "seen a rule... giving cover saves from hits" then apparently you havent ever read the rulebook despite being give the page numbers. Read page 62 again:

BRB page 62 wrote:If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit , it may take a cover save against it

My bolding, JUST in case you missed it. So, as you can clearly see, I really REALLY hope at least, you take saves against pen/glance HITS and NOT DAMAGE. So, theres a reason I've been persisting - I'm correct and you are not.

FlingitNow wrote:Read page 62 Vehicles take cover saves in the same way as infantry except for the given exceptions...

No, they don't. IF THEY ARE OBSCURED they may take cover saves against glancing / penetrating HITS.

So I ask again: *outside of obscured* what gives you permission to take cover saves agaisnt glance/penetrating hits? Please provide rules to back this up, as you claim the RAW shows this?

1) Page 20/21 deals with saving throws AGAINST WOUNDS
2) Page 62 lets you take cover saves against glance/pen HITS but ONLY IF YOU ARE OBSCURED

So, if you have a cover save but are not obscured you have no permission to take saves against glance / pen hits.

Seriously read the rules. Page 20 staes the word damage before talking about wounds.

No where does it say that a Vehicle has to be obscured to take a save throw you've just made that up. It specifically states cover and that a vehicle is only in cover from terrain if it is 50% covered by that facing. It then goes onm to describe this state as obscured.

It then specifies that this supercedes the rules for area terain providing cover.

It does not state it supercede ANY OTHER METHOD of acquiring cover.

You just make up rules and then make this bizarre conclusion again I have to point out:

1) Pages 20-24 cover taking save throws FROM DAMAGE including taking cover svaes. Seriously the first paragraph on page 20 states damage! Have you read any of it?

2) Page 62 states that vehicles are treated exactly like infantry for cover with the exceptions listed. Again I ask you to simply read the rules.

I have several times before each post.

FlingitNow wrote:No where does it say that a Vehicle has to be obscured to take a save throw you've just made that up.

I was all set to disagree with you, but after going over both the vehicle and normal cover save rules again, I think I'm actually going to have to revise my opinion on this one.


Turns out 'obscured' is not a condition specific to vehicles. Vehicles have to be obscured to be considered in cover... but so do infantry.

Page 21: "When are models in cover?"
"When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."

The only difference for vehicles is that they need a set percentage of their bulk to be obscured, rather than just any part of it.


There is nothing in the regular cover rules that would specifically allow a model to take a cover save due to a wargear item that doesn't actually physically obscure them. So if you take the tack (as I have previously) that a vehicle needs to either be physically obscured or have an obscured state specifically bestowed by a wargear item to take a cover save, you're going to have to apply the exact same rule to other models.

Conversely, if we accept that an infantry model can take a cover save without actually being obscured, I see no reason that a vehicle wouldn't gain the same benefit.


Essentially, at least as far as I can determine the RAW on this:
- Infantry and Vehicles have different rules covering when they are considered to be obscured.
- Being obscured allows a model to take a cover save.
- A wargear item that bestows a cover save allows a model to take a cover save.
- There is no rule that says that not being obscured affects the ability to take a cover save bestowed by wargear.



That being said, for the rule in question, since it specifically refers to 'squads' I would say that it only applies to squads, not vehicles. Of course, as pointed out, the rules don't define what constitutes a 'squad' so we have to fall back on real-world interpretations. Which to my mind would disallow vehicles, but YMMV.

isaniak I agree with every word.

Also by the definition that nosferatu1001 gives MC can never take a save throw as they are treated like vehicles but have wounds., hence by his definition can't take svae throws through the infantry rules but neither can they from the Vehicle rules because they do not suffer penetrating or glancing hits...

So what about vehicle squadrons? GW needs to fire Phil Kelley, but they won't because he sells models.

So what about vehicle squadrons? GW needs to fire Phil Kelley, but they won't because he sells models.

In fact RAW vehicle squadrons are the only "squads" in the SW army list everything else is packs...

The use of the term squad is very unclear on this and I'd say you'd have to go to GW to get a definitive answer. For instance for 1 Landspeeder to be unable claim the save but for 2 Landspeeders to be able to do so is non-sensical in the extreme.

To be honest I'd tend to go with squad being another word for unit. Otherwise are ICs unable to gain a save from this power too? Lone Wolves?

Bit of a mess the only clean way is for everything to get a save unless GW comes out with a list of exclusions or inclusions.

I wouldn't count a squadron as a squad... but again, YMMV. A squad, to me, is a unit of foot troops. I'd extend it as far as Jump Infantry and cavalry or beasts, but not to vehicles.

MC's are problematic... but since they follow the vehicle cover rules, I would probably lump them with vehicles for this one.


But that's all just making stuff up in the absence of actual rules. Feel free to make up your own to suit yourself and your opponent.

insaniak wrote:I wouldn't count a squadron as a squad... but again, YMMV. A squad, to me, is a unit of foot troops. I'd extend it as far as Jump Infantry and cavalry or beasts, but not to vehicles.

MC's are problematic... but since they follow the vehicle cover rules, I would probably lump them with vehicles for this one.


But that's all just making stuff up in the absence of actual rules. Feel free to make up your own to suit yourself and your opponent.

Yeah exactly can be taklen anyway. What about Independant Characters they can't be classed as squads surely? Squad is just short for squadron so I don't see how you can discount vehicle squadron. Either way as you are saying there are no rules to govern this so it is a case of getting agreement before the game or setting a house rule and determining how you want to define it.

My instinct would be take it to mean unit as this is the least messy approach and leaves no grey areas. Anything with unit type infantry or cavalry/beast would be another easy definition. But this is just how you could choose to interpret the rule.

FlingitNow wrote: What about Independant Characters they can't be classed as squads surely?

On their own, no, they would not be a squad. Make of that what you will.

Squad is just short for squadron

No it's not. They're two seperate words. In 40K terms, 'Squad' is generally applied to units of foot troops, whilst 'Squadron' is used exclusively for vehicles.

In the real world, 'squadron' can be used to describe a group of people, but is more commonly associated with groups of vehicles, whilst squad, again, generally just refers to groups of people.

So my discounting vehicle squadrons is down to common usage of the words.

If anything grants a vehicle 'obscurement', it should allow a 4+ cover save. If the power says squads get a 5+ cover save, it should extend to vehicles as well at a 5+.

As far as what constitutes a 'squad', wish you luck on that raw.

Personally, I would say squad is freely interchanged with unitl. YMMV

Flingit now: Read the second paragraph, page 20:

"if all the models in a unit are the same, AND HAVE A SINGLE WOUND"

Context Context Context. Oh look, it talks about Wounds all the way through - so maybe it only gives you permission to take saves against wounds!

3rd paragraph under "Cover Saves", page 21:

"When any part of the target models BODY (as defined on page 16)"

Context, context, context.

Pages 20/21 are entirely about taking saves against wounds (specifically wounding hits...) - specifically the definition on page 16 never talks about vehicles (deliberately so) it means that the rules for Cover Saves on page 21 *cannot be talking about glancing / penetrating hits* as according to the rules on page 21 a vehicle can never be considered obscured - it does not have a body that can be obscured according to the rules on page 16.

As such, the *only* permission to use cover saves against glancing / penetrating hits comes from Page 62, where you must count as Obscured according to the rules on page 62 in order to use a cover save against glancing / penetrating hits.

Seriously, I have read the rules....repeatedly. the *one* mention of "damage" does not override the entire lack of permission elsewhere to use saves against anything other than wounds.

If you receive a 5+ cover save from a piece of wargear, but do not count as obscured (either by the wargear stating so, or through the rules on page 62 for determining cover from terrain) then you only have permssion, from page 21, to use it against wounds.

In short: being granted a cover save only grants permission to use the rules on page 21, unless you also count as obscured.