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.

GW did a good thing when they made an errata (not an FAQ!) to change the wording of a certain power (Storm Caller?) to say that it provides a cover save to units rather than squads. I commend them on paying attention to a detail that some many consider minor, and making an actual correction of it. However, it still leaves on question open to some debate.

We all know that vehicles are units. So on first glance it would seem that vehicles would also gain this bonus. However, many have argued that in order for a vehicle to benefit from a cover save, they must be specifically granted obscured status, as the normal rules for cover saves only apply to wounds, not to penetrating and glancing hits.

I think that the simpler reading is just that any unit, regardless of unit type, within range will gain a cover save, and be able to use that cover save. I mention this simplicity because Occam's Razor tells us that the simple option is more often the correct option.

I think the more correct reading is that without granting obscured status a vehicle cannot benefit, even if it has a cover save.

What do you think?

As much as it can be considered a "Dick Move", I have to agree with the More correct reading. The Cover rules for vehicles state IF IT IS OBSCURED it gets to take the appropriate save (5+/4+/3+) and that if it OBSCURED, even in the open, it is a 4+.

Vehicles must have ~%50 of their bulk obscured by some other feature on the board (or have gained the 'obscured' effect from war gear) to gain a cover save. The main rule book is very explicit about this.

We have played that vehicles need to be obscured.

Vehicles must have ~%50 of their bulk obscured by some other feature on the board (or have gained the 'obscured' effect from war gear) to gain a cover save.

That is a common mis-reading of the rules.

BGB pg 62 wrote:At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. 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 claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured (or ‘hull down’).

Being in cover and being able to take a cover save are not the same thing. Example being a squadron of vehicles, as long as half the squadron can claim to be in cover, the whole unit may take the cover save --- even though they themselves are not in cover (or obscured, etc).

I think winterman has it dead on. Cover save != in cover (obscured). A vehicle must be obscured to utilize a cover save- unless granted from another source. By the same argument infantry cannot use it because they are not in cover and the rules say the unit must be in cover to gain a cover save.

The rulebook defines one general way vehicles may gain a cover save, not the sole, exclusive way.

I'm confused. You mean the special rule that overrides the main rulebook and grants a vehicle a cover save doesn't work?

Are you going to tell me that Bjorn doesn't get an invulnerable save because it invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds according to the BRB?



/Agree with winterman and jmurph

jmurph wrote:I think winterman has it dead on. Cover save != in cover (obscured). A vehicle must be obscured to utilize a cover save- unless granted from another source.

The problem (as was pointed out in the original post) is that normally cover saves only allow you to save against wounds.

Being obscured allows vehicles to take a cover save against glancing or penetrating hits. Nothing allows them to take cover saves against these hits without being obscured.

So yes, technically anything that grants units a cover save without making vehicles obscured will grant vehicles a cover save... but that cover save is only against wounds, and so is useless to vehicles.


And yes, to stick to the topic, that's pretty much how I play it.

Timmah wrote:Are you going to tell me that Bjorn doesn't get an invulnerable save because it invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds according to the BRB?

Bjorn doesn't get an invulnerable save because invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds according to the BRB. If you don't like it, bully for you. That is what the rules say.

Doesn't the codex say that he gets the save against glances and pens, the same as the vehicle cover rules?

I believe so, that or they may have FAQ'd it. I think this relates somewhat to the disruption pods debate as well: outside of the common usage of cover/smoke to obscure vehicles what is the process for determining what happens when? Or if, for that matter.

Yeah I should have been more clear, I was not weighing in one way or another on the matter with my post -- just pointing out the fallacy in that quoted statement (it comes up often enough in other arguments regarding MCs and squadrons I was compelled to post). I agree with insaniak, although I wouldn't waste gametime arguing about it on the table top.

insaniak wrote:Doesn't the codex say that he gets the save against glances and pens, the same as the vehicle cover rules?

No, it doesn't. No, they didn't faq it.

Gwar! wrote:The Cover rules for vehicles state IF IT IS OBSCURED it gets to take the appropriate save (5+/4+/3+) and that if it OBSCURED, even in the open, it is a 4+.

So given MC per the BRB must follow all the cover save rules outlined for vehicles, does that mean that Venomthope wouldn't give MC a 5+ cover save?

insaniak wrote:
Being obscured allows vehicles to take a cover save against glancing or penetrating hits. Nothing allows them to take cover saves against these hits without being obscured.

So yes, technically anything that grants units a cover save without making vehicles obscured will grant vehicles a cover save... but that cover save is only against wounds, and so is useless to vehicles.

So are we also arguing that the 3+ cover save granted from extreme angles also, technically, means nothing? It isn't obscured, after all, and apparently the rules do not tell us how to handle that cover save.

Regardless, it is a how do you play question (as you point out) and I can't imagine many people would play it other than allowing the save.

wyomingfox wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The Cover rules for vehicles state IF IT IS OBSCURED it gets to take the appropriate save (5+/4+/3+) and that if it OBSCURED, even in the open, it is a 4+.

So given MC per the BRB must follow all the cover save rules outlined for vehicles, does that mean that Venomthope wouldn't give MC a 5+ cover save?

Because normal non-obscured cover saves may be taken against wounds, a MC may still benefit from items that simply grant a cover save, even though they normally need to be obscured.

jmurph wrote:

insaniak wrote:
Being obscured allows vehicles to take a cover save against glancing or penetrating hits. Nothing allows them to take cover saves against these hits without being obscured.

So yes, technically anything that grants units a cover save without making vehicles obscured will grant vehicles a cover save... but that cover save is only against wounds, and so is useless to vehicles.

So are we also arguing that the 3+ cover save granted from extreme angles also, technically, means nothing? It isn't obscured, after all, and apparently the rules do not tell us how to handle that cover save.

Regardless, it is a how do you play question (as you point out) and I can't imagine many people would play it other than allowing the save.

According to the poll, about 60% of the people who have voted so far would play it not allowing the save.

Which only tells me that there are 15 people I wouldn't want to play with ;-)

jmurph wrote:Which only tells me that there are 15 people I wouldn't want to play with ;-)

Because they disagree with you about an ambiguous rule?

That makes me glad I don't have to play against you and I even voted for the first option...

hah! i forgot about bjorns inability to make use of his invul, i would never normally do it, but i shoulda remembered that and used it on this tool from an rtt that blatant cheated but the judge waffled and thought a land raider redeemers flamestorm cannon could somehow hit a unit on top of a bastion, i wouldve loved to have done that though ...

"Actually, im sorry. But Bjorn is unable to make use of his invul =/"

"wtf are you talking about dont be a tard"

*pulls out brb and points out invul saves -> wounds*

*chuckle at his apoplexy*

hah! i forgot about bjorns inability to make use of his invul, i would never normally do it, but i shoulda remembered that and used it on this tool from an rtt that blatant cheated but the judge waffled and thought a land raider redeemers flamestorm cannon could somehow hit a unit on top of a bastion, i wouldve loved to have done that though ...

I know this if off-topic, but if the flamestorm cannon template could touch a fire point on that bastion, then yes you could be hit by it even if you're inside.

willydstyle wrote:

Because they disagree with you about an ambiguous rule?

That makes me glad I don't have to play against you and I even voted for the first option...

Yeah, I'm known for my poor sportsmanship and being a total PITA to play.... MAH TOY SOLDIERZ IZ SERIOUZ BIZNESS RAAAHH!

I guess Internet smilies don't work anymore...

Protip: You never really play against another player; you play with them- you both have to cooperate to play the silly game after all.

Here's the big question. Why would they errata it from squads to units then?

Timmah wrote:Here's the big question. Why would they errata it from squads to units then?

RTFM!

All joking aside, there is no such thing as Squads. The correct terminology is "units".
Funny how they errata'd that but still ignore the whole "Charge" issue.

no, we werent playing planetstrike, it was just a declared one level piece of terrain. theres no legal manner to hit the unit

How did you get your dudes on the parapet if it wasn't a building?

Jump Infantry? They can land on impassable terrain, which the top of an intact building is usually classified as

I'm confused. You mean the special rule that overrides the main rulebook and grants a vehicle a cover save doesn't work?

Are you going to tell me that Bjorn doesn't get an invulnerable save because it invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds according to the BRB?

Under strick RaW the vehicle get sthe cover save but can only use it against wounds. Just like Bjorn can only use his invulnerable save against wounds.

However the above is obviously not how it is intended to play and I'd say the rules are pretty clear that yes Vehicles get the cover save and they can use it against penetrating and glancing hits. In a Tourney it could be ruled the other way if so you should be entitled to walk off and get a full refund as they are being total if I was playing someone and they tried to pull that (not that I use SW so it would never happen but) I'd take my models off and play someone else.

FlingitNow wrote:However the above is obviously not how it is intended to play

Prove it

In a Tourney it could be ruled the other way if so you should be entitled to walk off and get a full refund as they are being total

Huh? You are saying that you are entitled to a refund because the Tournament organisers want people playing by the rules?

if I was playing someone and they tried to pull that (not that I use SW so it would never happen but) I'd take my models off and play someone else.

Which says a lot more about your character than theirs, truth be told.

Prove it

I'll prove beyond reasonable doubt. Bjorn has an invulnerable save using the oposite interpretation implies he can only use this save against wounds. So why did GW give him the save? Because they expect people to work out vehicles take saves (be that cover or invulnerable) against Penetrating and glancing hits rather than wounds. Surely you agree that the vehicle get sthe save (as does Bjorn) yet you are claim GW is intending them to only use against wounds (which they don't have)? No reasonable person would argue this.

You are saying that you are entitled to a refund because the Tournament organisers want people playing by the rules?

They aren't playing by the rules though, so what is you point? I'm saying that you are entitled to a refund if the Tournament isn't using the rules and doesn't tell you before hand what house rules they are applying.

Which says a lot more about your character than theirs, truth be told.

Then fair enough I play in the spirit of the game and whilst I'll generally let my opponents get away with anything I am either unsure of or not bothered by doing something I know so clearly is against rules I'll pull them up on. If they insist on breaking rules I won't play them. If that makes me unreasonable then so be it.

FlingitNow wrote:No reasonable person would argue this.

I am reasonable. I argue this. I know that, by the rules, Bjorns Invulnerable save only works against wounds. Anyone saying otherwise is not playing by the rules.