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.

I apologize if this has been covered already but all the threads I saw seemed to predate the dex and I could not find an FAQ fro the C:SW on gameworkshop.com soooo

1) At the top of C:SW pg 36, the entry states "[Rune Priests] can only use one power each player turn..." (emphasis added)(This is a direct quote without any important information omitted). The BA dex may have made me crazy but does this mean Rune Priests may use a psychic power in the opponent's player turn? By RAI I think not, but by RAW...

2) In the C:SW entry for the psychic power Storm Caller it states "Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly squads within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save." Are vehicles considered a squad?

Deuce11 wrote:I apologize if this has been covered already but all the threads I saw seemed to predate the dex and I could not find an FAQ fro the C:SW on gameworkshop.com soooo

1) At the top of C:SW pg 36, the entry states "[Rune Priests] can only use one power each player turn..." (emphasis added)(This is a direct quote without any important information omitted). The BA dex may have made me crazy but does this mean Rune Priests may use a psychic power in the opponent's player turn? By RAI I think not, but by RAW...

2) In the C:SW entry for the psychic power Storm Caller it states "Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly squads within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save." Are vehicles considered a squad?

1) Yes, they can use a Psychic Power on the Opponents Turn. However, None of their Psychic powers, other than their Force Weapon Instant Death power, have a permission to be used on the opponents turn, so they cannot use any power other than the Force Weapon Instant Death power during the opponents turn.

2) Yes, they are a unit, but they don't benefit from the cover save. Give me a second to come up with the 6 or so previous times this has come up. Second is Up!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/290773.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/290517.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/290084.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/285934.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288176.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288650.page

Read these as for why it doesn't benefit vehicles.

As for SW FAQ, it is up, but GW nicked most of it from mine (link in sig). I suggest reading both, along with the INAT FAQ!

i swear I didn't see these when I typed in "storm caller;" I SWEAR!

Lock it up MOD

The thing that kind of sucks about the 5+ cover save power is that its at the start of the turn so you cant go oh I'm being shot at from no armor or cover save, let me use the power and go to ground and get a 4+ cover save.

I wish it was like shield of sanguinis which I believe is reflexive.

SoS isn't 'reflexive' so much, but IS used in the opponent's turn, so it allows the psyker to use whatever power he wants in his turn, then SoS in his opponent's turn.

@OP

You can also look in those threads for the arguments that vehicles DO benefit from cover saves.

EDIT

You might also use a SW shooting attack during your opponent's turn by way of an allied inquisitor + mystics.

kartofelkopf wrote:SoS isn't 'reflexive' so much, but IS used in the opponent's turn, so it allows the psyker to use whatever power he wants in his turn, then SoS in his opponent's turn.

@OP

You can also look in those threads for the arguments that vehicles DO benefit from cover saves.

Yes, but none of them are supported by the rules.

Eh, not going to rehash this here. Just letting OP know that it's not as cut and dried as you make it seem to be.

Vehicles do benefit from Stormcaller, its just a 5+ and not an "obscured" 4+ like from a KFF.

the rule for how to take a cover save for a vehicle is a separate sentence and a separate clause from the rule that explains how a vehicle benefits from the obscured status. There is an errata on the GW website that changes "squad" to "unit" in the stormcaller rule, this gives further credit to vehicles being subject to the ability, as vehicles are indeed units.

the "its not obscured" arguement is a red herring arguement, a save is a save is a save, and vehicles have the provisions to take any save granted to them by an ability or special rule.

Not to mention that the INAT FAQ states that storm caller does work on vehicles.

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].

So in any tournament or gaming group that uses the INAT FAQ, storm caller grants cover saves to vehicles.

And the great thing that you#re all ignoring?

Nobody disagrees that the vehicle *gains* a cover save. It has a cover save, 100% agreed.

Now, it is only allowed to use that cover save against wounds, as that is what Saves are defined as saving - wounds. If you want to use that save against HITS then you MUST be obscured, because the only time you are given permission to use a save against hits comes from the line that starts: "If you are obscured..."

If you are not obscured, you do not have permission to read the "true" part of that statement.

Demogerg - please provide a *rule* that backs up your last statement. Permissive ruleset remember.

Exactly, demogurg seems to like ignoring the preceding statement to the if obscured clause. That nice thing that says vehicles in fact dont benefit from cover like normal infantry, that alone tells you the rules to follow are the only way a vehicle can benefit from cover.

TLDR, they get a 5+ cover save they cant use, as theyre not obscured.

1) It doesn't matter if they don't benefit from cover like normal infantry, they are granted a cover save by the ability.

2) There are several examples of a "Cover Save" being able to apply to vehicle damage hits in addition to wounds.

If you actually read through past posts, it is three individuals stating over and over how this doesn't work for vehicles. As their points were refuted, the opinion has shifted to other ways to try to show how it doesn't work. The most recent agreement is above where a vehicle is granted a Cover Save but the claim is it cannot be used. This is nonsense.

There is no separate word used to explain the vehicle save rule. It is not a "Vehicle Damaging Hit Save", it is a Cover Save that is granted, and you see in the rule book that many conditions can grant a Cover Save that does work to stop rolls against the vehicle damage table.

The rule for obscured does NOT say that a vehicle gets a cover save ONLY if its obscured.

There is nothing that says that Obscured is the only way to take a cover save with a vehicle.

the instructions for vehicles taking saves happens to be listed right after the rules for being obscured. Please note that they are separate clauses which although linked, they are a directional statement that cannot be reversed.

Vehicles dont benefit from "cover" like infantry, as in a low hedge wont give a vehicle a cover save, however, the rule for how to take a "cover save" for a vehicle is listed right there.

a vehicle is granted the cover save via the special ability/rule, and there are instructions on how to take that save right there.

To make use of physical "cover" (and gain a "cover save") a vehicle must be obscured, to make use of a "cover save" the vehicle must either be granted the save from a special rule/ability ]u]or[/u] be obscured.



cover =/= cover save
cover for infantry =/= cover for vehicles



cover saves for infantry are gained from being in area terrain, being obscured from the firer, or being granted a save from an ability or special rule
cover saves for vehicles are gained from being more than 50% obscured to the firer, or being granted a save from an ability or special rule

cover saves for infantry are worked out to negate wounds
cover saves for vehicles are worked out to negate glancing and penetrating hits

@Demogerg: I wish there was a 'Like' button such as in Facebook for posts.

1) Sigh. We agree they have a cover save. Stop repeating this like it is something new.

2) No, there arent actually - they are all OBSCURED i.e. skimmers going fast, KFF, etc. this then gives you a cover save - but you only get to USE this cover save against HITS by followiung the "if obscured" clause.

Which I notice you, once again, entirely ignore. Please provide:

a) a rule showing that Saves, as defined on page 20/21, work against Hits and not wounds (hint: it doesnt exist)

OR

b) a rule showing that vehicles can use cover saves against hits *without first being obscuired* (hint@: it doesnt exist)

If you can do neither of these you have conceded the argument. Given this is the 3rd thread (at a guess) where you have been asked to, you know, actually show some *rules* to back up your vague and unsupported statements, and you have 100% failed to do so so far, my guess is you will just ignore this again,.

And for the last time: noone disagrees they *get* a cover save. If you argument goes down the "have" line again you are trolling.

the argument has never actually shifted. I *beg* you to actually go and prove that statement.


EDIT Demogerg - you have shown that vehicles gain cover saves. Brilliant. You just proved something that was not in contention.

Now please prove that you can USE the save against HITS and not wounds, as Saves on page 20/21 are DEFINED AS SAVING AGAINST WOUNDS. So please show PERMISSION to USE the save against HITS.

I have made it simple for you, please now actually answer the question and not the one you keep imagining.

Circular and repetitive argument is circular and repetitive. Thanks for rehashing it again and providing the links. People can easily read the arguments for themselves.