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.

It's a RAW thing.

I don't want to get into it.

General Fuzzum wrote:Ok i seriously dont understand what the problem is. You have to be touching cover or in it to get a cover save.
If your not doing either one of those things, you dont get one. What's for discussion here?!?!

Because that isn't actually what the rules state.

If your rationale were true the ruels would actually state that the ONLY way to get cover was XYZ. Trouble is the rules *do not say that* and as such in no way override what the 5th BRB rules state as regards determining cover.

The problem is that the rules for cover changed from 4th to 5th edition. In 4th, when the Tau dex was written, cover was a physical thing, a terrain piece. Now in 5th cover has changed to obscuration. So units are in cover in more ways than the SMS rules were written for. By straight RAW units out of LOS of the SMS will always get cover saves.

I would never play it that way because the intent behind the SMS rules in 4th is clear: a unit must be in or touching a physical piece of cover. This is why the INAT FAQ made the same ruling.

I have never understood why there is so much of a problem with this rule. The rule states quite clearly when cover applies:

1) The unit is in cover.

2) The unit is touching cover which is between itself and the firer.

Thats it, not at any other time.

Reversing the wording.

Cover does not apply if:

1) The unit is not in cover.

2) The unit is not touching cover which is between itself and the firer.

End of story.

horsa wrote:I have never understood why there is so much of a problem with this rule. The rule states quite clearly when cover applies:
1) The unit is in cover.

BGBp.21 wrote: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

So, RAW says they are in cover. Bring in cover is one of the conditions of the SMS rule. This is where the contention lies. A unit behind another unit is, RAW, in cover.

EDIT x2: clarity.

horsa wrote:I have never understood why there is so much of a problem with this rule. The rule states quite clearly when cover applies:

-snip the parts where horsa ignored the rest of the thread-

End of story.

Except, and this is the bit you choose to ignore and has been pointed out 3 or 4 times in thsi thread - nowhere does it say this is the ONLY way cover may be obtained. Look up how the BRB defines cover.......Now, have you ACTUALLY done that? Good: now does the SMS actually override any of that?

The answer is *no*. The SMS does not in any way shape or form override how the BRB states you can receive cover saves. In fact it defines additional ways, or perhaps specific examples of such - but in no way does it ever, ever state that the SMS cover rules are the only ones you can use. Hint; It would have to use the words "only" or other such restrictive phrases in order to do what you are claiming. It doesn't, so your claim is false.

The Codex only overrides if it is more specific. Here, it is providing specific methods to gain cover saves, but does not restrict you to just these methods. Therefore it deos not override the rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The Codex only overrides if it is more specific. Here, it is providing specific methods to gain cover saves, but does not restrict you to just these methods.

Ah, irony...

Yes, it gives you certain methods to gain cover saves - but doesnt specify these as the ONLY methods to generate cover saves.

Perhaps if i used the word "certain methods" in place of "specific methods"?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, it gives you certain methods to gain cover saves - but doesnt specify these as the ONLY methods to generate cover saves.

It doesn't have to say, "only." Rather, it would have to say "in addition to the normal rules, cover saves may be gained in these two ways," in order for anything in the BRB to apply. The fact that the rules in the Tau codex are different is enough to trigger Codex > BRB.

Since 40k uses a permissive rules set, we may only do things if we are specifically allowed to do so. Combine this with Codex > BRB, and the result is that--for SMS--the only way to gain cover is by the ways specifically allowed in the codex.

Yes, cover rules were different in 4th ed than in the current version. So were smoke launchers, drop pods, and power of the machine spirit. Until all armies have current rules (i.e., never), there will always be a range of rules in use.

Excpet it isnt codex > BRB, that is a fallacy

It is "specific > general" - in all cases. MOST of the time this is a codex being more specific.

This, I'm afraid, is not one of them. ALL the codex states is ways to gain cover. At no point does it declare them the only way to gain cover, which WOULD make it more specific than the BRB.

Seriously - point to where it is more specific than the rulebook in how ANY cover save whatsoever may be generated

Its wording may be slightly off at present, but the intention is widely known. Even to those many who pick up the codex having never played 4th edition or Tau. Like the multi-tracker and pulse carbines, aspects of the RAW interpretation aren't used in most games. SMS granting extra methods of cover, in addition to regular cover, would be one such ignored aspect of a RAW interpretation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Seriously - point to where it is more specific than the rulebook in how ANY cover save whatsoever may be generated

Easy. How many weapons in the BRB give ANY rules about how cover saves are generated? Off the top of my head, the only weapons in the BRB that do so are barrage weapons and template weapons. For everything else the 'normal' rules are used.

Barrage weapons have specific cover rules, therefore normal rules don't apply.

Template weapons specifically ignore cover, therefore normal rules don't apply.

SMS have specific cover rules, therefore normal rules don't apply.

Template weapons STATE they ignore cover
Barrage weapons STATE they ignore the normal rules and instead (a word missing from the Tau codex) use their own

SMS does neither of these things, therefore it does not ignore the 5th ed cover rules. Your last conclusion is not logically supportable and is, in fact, false.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Template weapons STATE they ignore cover
Barrage weapons STATE they ignore the normal rules and instead (a word missing from the Tau codex) use their own

SMS does neither of these things, therefore it does not ignore the 5th ed cover rules. Your last conclusion is not logically supportable and is, in fact, false.

Hardly. You asked how the codex was any more specific than the BRB. The vast majority of weapons have NO rules regarding cover saves. The SMS entry INCLUDES rules regarding cover saves. The fact that the SMS has ANY discussion of cover demonstrates specificity. As you put it, Specific > General.

EVERY other weapon that includes cover rules discussion alters the way it interacts with the normal cover rules. By definition, any mention of these rules would be specific to the weapon entry that includes them. To argue that the SMS cover rules AREN'T specific is not logically supportable and is, in fact, false.

Sigh. Specific > General means "when rules clash, the more specific rule wins out" - and the Tau codex does not clash with the BRB. I thought you understoof the short hand version

ALL the Tau codex does is provide some rules for generating cover, but never states they override or otherwise replace the BRB. As the rules do not clash (for example stating "the only way to get cover is....." would clash with the 5th BRB methods of determining cover) then you cannot override the BRB with the codex.

And before you invoke Smoke launchers reference that also only applies when the same *rule* is different in the codex and the brb; this is not the same rule so Smoke Launchers reference does not apply.

The cover save mentioned for SMS does not follow the precedent you handily supplied: every other weapon that overrides or replaces the cover save rules specifies that it does so. EVERY other one. That's your clue as to what specific > general actually means.

Of course every other weapon that specifies that it overrides the rules for 5th edition cover are the only ones that change the rules in their case. Otherwise we wouldn't know if it ignored cover or not!
I definitely agree with CatPeeler on this one.
Why would GW put anything in the description of the SMS having to do with cover unless it modified the rules in some way?

General Fuzzum wrote:Why would GW put anything in the description of the SMS having to do with cover unless it modified the rules in some way?

Because it used to. As it stands, 5e RAW doesn't contradict any of the rules - so you can still apply them, they just have a slightly different effect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ALL the Tau codex does is provide some rules for generating cover, but never states they override or otherwise replace the BRB. As the rules do not clash (for example stating 'the only way to get cover is.....' would clash with thE 5th BRB methods of determining cover) then you cannot override the BRB with the codex.

Your argument (as I understand it) is that since the SMS entry doesn't explicitly state that it ignores all other rules for cover, all other rules still apply. The problem with this argument is that it would have made the SMS cover rules as useless in 4th as you're trying to make them in 5th.

Unless the specific rules for cover in the SMS entry REPLACE the rules for cover in the main rulebook, any mention of cover in the SMS entry is entirely meaningless--in any edition! The SMS cover saves were instead of the normal cover saves in 4th, so why would you think that they are in addition to the normal cover saves in 5th?

As a permissive rules set, the codex doesn't need to forbid additional rules--it must explicitly allow them. If it doesn't mention any other methods (i.e., no 'as usual' or 'see the main rules'), then you cannot use any other methods. This is the heart of the Specific > General guideline. When a particular piece of wargear or weaponry states how the rules apply, it must REPLACE the normal way the rules apply for it to have any effect at all. Without that explicit heirarchy, differences between books would be irreconcilable.

Nope, you're wrong there.

In 4th ed you would have had no method of determining cover for SMS, which is why they had to tell you how to do it.

In 5th ed cover is determined by the line drawn from the firing model to the target: SMS deos not alter that one jot, it in fact tells you other ways you can get cover.

Specific > General can ONLY mean in cases of a rules clash you take the more specific rule. I simply have no idea where you get the idea that any mention of any rule in a codex overrides everything in the BRB - that is simply laughable. Really it is. Yoou're just hung up on that as USUALLY codices replace BRB rules that it must mean they do so in every case - but this is only the case if they are written to do so! Here you have an odd case that, in 4th, you could not have received a cover save from an SMS ever - so they had to tell you how you would generate one. This never replaced the cover save determination mechanic in 4th, merely added to it - unfortunately in 5th you are adding to a cover save mechanic that still works, regardless of SMS rules, and so they are at best superfluous.

Oh, and it must not necessarily replace - only where it states that it is the only way to do X does it replace the BRB method for determining X. Here it does not do so, so it does not do so. Its really that simple.

I am not trying to make them useless, just asking you to point out exactly where it states that the only method for obtaining cover is X? You cannopt do so - instead you have to invent from whole cloth this notion that any mention of a BRB rule in a codex results in that BRB rule being overridded. Laughable, really, quite funny.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I am not trying to make them useless, just asking you to point out exactly where it states that the only method for obtaining cover is X?

Again, that's not how permissive rulesets work. It's NOT a situation where if the rules don't forbid it, it's fair game--we can only do what the rules explicitly say we can do.

It boils down to this: the BRB says that, IN GENERAL, this is how cover saves work. The Tau Codex says that, IN THE SPECIFIC CASE OF THIS SPECIFIC WEAPON, this is how cover saves work.

Not how most Tau weapons work, not how most weapons in 4th ed worked, how a SPECIFIC weapon in a SPECIFIC codex worked.

The idea that the SMS cover & BRB cover rules don't contradict each other is unsupportable. One lets you count effects of cover granted by TWO SPECIFIC TYPES OF TERRAIN. The other states that units that HAVE A SPECIFIC STATUS get a cover save. Obviously, these rules are DIFFERENT, and as the BRB states, when rules in the Codex are DIFFERENT than rules in the BRB, this represents a SPECIFIC exception to the GENERAL rule, and the codex rules take precedence.

The only way the rules wouldn't contradict each other is if the SMS entry said that "units in these two situations count as being in cover." This would mesh how the SMS rules (cover granted by terrain) and BRB rules (cover is an abstract concept) work. Because it doesn't, we are left with two DIFFERENT methods of generating cover saves.

The BRB is very clear on this. Nowhere else in the game do you use the specific AND the general rules. One ALWAYS takes precedence. Can you find ANY instance in the rules where you use two different methods to do the same thing at the same time?

Except it doesnt say "IN THE SPECIFIC CASE OF THIS SPECIFIC WEPAON" now, does it?

The BRB says you gain cover in X, Y, Z ways.

SMS states cover CAN be gained in R, S, T ways.

The two do not overlap or contradict each other, as Tau does not say "you may only gain" or anything similar. At no point does it state this, no matter how many times you try to pretend it does.

I also explained to you this once, but apparently it didnt stick: the BRB syas that when two rules WITH THE SAME NAME are different then the codex wins out. Does the SMS rule have the same name? No? Really? Almost like I already pointed this out to you once before....

I know how permissive rulesets work, you don't: The BRB gives you rules on how to generate cover saves, SMS gives y ou more rules - and does not state thesde are the only way to gain cover. Unless you do what you keep on doing and adding words to the rules (like you keep adding "specific", "only", etc) the two do not collide.

Oddly enough I don't have to prove my case, as you are trying to exclude something - i've shown how they don't override eachother (the SMS rules do not specify the only methods in which you can gain cover, as the language used is not exclusionary) now you need to prove, using just the language of the rules, that they are exclusionary.

Otherwise the default position, which is that cover is as per BRB, is upheld

Iago wrote:... but it lost me a tournament once... because the guy claimed

ahh the famous word of many

nosferatu1001 wrote:The BRB says you gain cover in X, Y, Z ways.

SMS states cover CAN be gained in R, S, T ways.

Close, but not quite. SMS states "...the target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching..."

In both 4th & 5th, there were a number of ways a unit could get a cover save--more than just the two in the SMS entry, obviously--but the two in the SMS entry are the only two that COUNT.

By including the phrase, "can count the benefit of," the language DOES become exclusionary. It doesn't say, "can ALSO count the benefits of."

To put it another way, the BRB says that odd numbers count as cover, while the SMS entry says that you can count ones and threes as cover.

I also explained to you this once, but apparently it didnt stick: the BRB says that when two rules WITH THE SAME NAME are different then the codex wins out.

Ah, I think I see the confusion here. SMS isn't a rule. SMS is a weapon. COVER is the rule in question. In the Codex, Cover = two specific terrain types. In the BRB, Cover = a specific Status that affects a unit. Two different methodologies, two different rules, one name.

And as you so nicely pointed out, when there are two versions of the same rule, codex wins out.

"Can count the benefits of" is not exclusionary

"Can ONLY count the benefits of" is exclusionary

Kilkrazy wrote:Personally I agree with the INAT FAQ.

Generally I use the INAT FAQ, even when I disagree with it.

kirsanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Personally I agree with the INAT FAQ.

Generally I use the INAT FAQ, even when I disagree with it.

I use the INAT FAQ, even when I don't really agree with it, because that is what we have decided to use pre game.

If we use a permissive rule set then the other rule is overridden by the codex. Codex always wins out over the rulebook. Cover is stated to be gained in these ways. LOS is not used for the SMS so saying that you can gain a cover by the piece of terrain in the middle of the LOS is invalid.

Cover is gained by being in a piece of area terrain or by touching cover. This is stated in the codex that this is how cover is gained. Not cover may be gained in this way. This is how it can be gained. This is how you get cover. The cover rules for the rulebook are no longer appropriate because this states how cover is gained against the SMS. The word only does not matter.

Stating that these ways is how cover can be gained and knowing that this is a permissive rule set gives us the conclusion that these are the ways to gain cover against this weapon. Normal cover rules do not apply because they are replaced by this rule in the codex.

If you state that you gain cover because of a unit in between the firing unit and the target you end up involving LoS into the equation. Now if the unit was inside a building then you might have a point but this is covered by being in area terrain - the building.

You involve LOS as, although the weapon does not require it, cover rules for 5th ed require that you determine LOS between the firer and the target.

Permissive ruleset: I have permission to use the cover rules desginated in the rulebook until a specific rule states they are either ignored or replaced.

The TAU codex does NEITHER of these, therefore I STILL have permission to use cover from the BRB.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You involve LOS as, although the weapon does not require it, cover rules for 5th ed require that you determine LOS between the firer and the target.

Permissive ruleset: I have permission to use the cover rules desginated in the rulebook until a specific rule states they are either ignored or replaced.

The TAU codex does NEITHER of these, therefore I STILL have permission to use cover from the BRB.

Well you need to look for a unit between the target and the firer. This is LoS. Ignoring LoS basically means you ignore everything in between the firer and the target. If you can't look for a unit then there is no way a unit can be in between becasue this involves you using Sight!

It states the weapon does not use LOS to shoot, however that is ENTIRELY different from saying it deos not use LOS to deterrmine cover saves - it would in fact be odd if it did, as this is a 4th ed codex.

4th ed cover saves determination meant you needed to add the rules otherwise you couldnt determine saves. 5th ed does not have that same issue.