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.

And, yet again, a blind idolatry of RAW leads to something that goes against fairly clear RAI...

For what it's worth, the rules for cover saves never actually mention taking them against wounds (whereas both the Armour and Invulnerable saves sections specify wounds).

Further, the rules for vehicles specify that vehicles may take cover saves against penetrating and glancing hits, going so far as to specify that the cover save roll is the same as it would be for a non-vehicle model (i.e., 3+, 4+, etc....).

I guess the only "confusing" part for RAW purists is that some wargear/abilities don't specify that the vehicle counts as 'obscured' (compare the SW psychic power to a big mek's KFF, for example). This seems a needless splitting of hairs; an ability that grants a cover save is assumed to meet the requirements to grant the cover save (i.e., a unit Grey Hunters in the open is granted a cover save, without the need to be in cover, much as a Rhino could be granted a cover save, without the need to have 50% of its model obscured.

I'm still uncertain about where the RAW argument comes from that vehicles cannot take cover saves-- it seems rather explicitly stated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I see it now.

"If the target is obscured, ... it may take a cover save."

I still think "At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is
being targeted... 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" addresses this.

If you can claim to be in cover, you are said to be obscured. If I am explicitly granted a cover save, I can claim to be in cover, and, if this is the case, I am obscured.

I think the RAI is painfully clear here, and the RAW seems to support the RAI. The defining characteristic of a vehicle said to be obscured is whether or not it can claim cover. If it can claim cover, it is obscured.

Here is GW, Here is a special rule GW wrote that worked just fine before (Squads is defined in the BRB on page 3 btw, as an alternate desciptor to 'units')
and here is the errata that makes the internet hemorrhage into a nerd-rage fest that splits the community in twine, and starts fights over a game of little toy soldiers.

Here is GW...

Although I play Space Wolves, and I run mech lists with Rune priests all the time, I am going to dodge this whole arguement by NOT taking the storm caller power.

Kart... - you missed the entire context of "saves", which does specify wounds.

In addition you have made a logical fallacy: if you are obscured you are in cover, but you cannot *assume* that having a cover save makes you obscured.

Demogerg wrote:Here is GW, Here is a special rule GW wrote that worked just fine before (Squads is defined in the BRB on page 3 btw, as an alternate desciptor to 'units')
and here is the errata that makes the internet hemorrhage into a nerd-rage fest that splits the community in twine, and starts fights over a game of little toy soldiers.

Here is GW...

Although I play Space Wolves, and I run mech lists with Rune priests all the time, I am going to dodge this whole arguement by NOT taking the storm caller power.

Solution- just spam more JAWS!

Does the rules in the BRB say you may ONLY take invulnerable/cover saves against wounds? Or is it just giving an example of what they can be taken against.

Likewise, which rule am I breaking by taking an invulnerable save against a penetrating hit? Can you quote the rule itself?

CptZach wrote:Likewise, which rule am I breaking by taking an invulnerable save against a penetrating hit?

How would you do that?

CptZach wrote:Does the rules in the BRB say you may ONLY take invulnerable/cover saves against wounds? Or is it just giving an example of what they can be taken against.

It only gives rules for taking saves against wounds. It does not list these as an "example" - as only infantry are considered at this point, and vehicles are not introduced until much later

CptZach wrote:Likewise, which rule am I breaking by taking an invulnerable save against a penetrating hit? Can you quote the rule itself?

Can you please find a rule that allows you to take invulnerable saves against penetrating or glancing hits? You can only do what you are told you CAN do. If you want to do something YOU must provide the rule letting you do it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Can you please find a rule that allows you to take invulnerable saves against penetrating or glancing hits? You can only do what you are told you CAN do. If you want to do something YOU must provide the rule letting you do it.

Sure, Bjorn himself gives a rule that states he may take an invulnerable save against any penetrating or glancing hit.

No, his rule does not state that. It says he has an invulnerable save but does not include the wording similar to BRB cover saves for vehicles, where is states they can take invulnerable saves exactly as if it was against wounds.

Clearly, when confronted with Bjorn's wording "a 5+ invulnerable save against glancing or penetrating hits", the wisest course of action is to halt the game if Bjorn is glanced or penetrated. If the save is passed, you're now in the unknown territory of not knowing how to apply a save against a hit. Worse, if the save is failed then the other player is in the unknown territory of attempting to resolve either an unsaved glancing hit or an unsaved penetrating hit against a vehicle.

Simply put the dice down on the table and wait calmly while a rules cleanup team is dispatched to your location.

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

Sorry you say you know this is the case by the rules please prove that RAI (which is the rules) is that GW gave Bjorn and invulnerable save that he can not use. Please prove what you know beyond the reasonable doubt Or even highlight why there is any doubt about him being able to use the invulnerable save GW have given him..

BRB wrote:Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry....

So vehicles don't benefit from cover unless a bunch of criteria are passed.
Going by the main rulebook.

SW Errata wrote:...he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save.

So all friendly units benefit from cover based on the specific wording of the SW Codex Errata. To expand upon the Errata, we can look at the definition of 'units' within the rulebook. The rulebook defines unit types as infantry, beasts and cavalry, monstrous creatures, jump infantry, artillery, bikes and jetbikes, and vehicles.

Using nothing but rulebook definitions, we can then re-write the Space Wolf Errata to read:

SW Errata wrote:...he and all friendly infantry, beasts and cavalry, monstrous creatures, jump infantry, artillery, bikes and jetbikes, and vehicles within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save.

Let's parse the statements a bit to just get the most relevant parts for this conversation. Doing so, we are left with:

SW Errata wrote:... vehicles within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save.

BRB wrote:Vehicles do not benefit from cover...

These two rules are directly contradictory. In these situations, GW has told us that the codex takes precedence. Thus, vehicles can benefit from cover at a specific value of 5+.

To look at it further, if we need to, Stormcaller errata specifies that the only relevant part of the Cover rules are the benefits. All of the mechanics preceding the beneficial results, and any detrimental effects, are therefore ignored (or rather, they are assumed to have already been fulfilled) since the rule only specifies that benefits are applied, not the actual mechanics of cover.

These are the Rules as Written. No RAI is necessary.

The vehicle recieves a cover save - granted. It is just a cover save that may only be used against *wounds*, not hits of either kind (pen/glance) - this is only provided by being *obscured*

Nothing that you have given overrides that.

no cover save can be taken by a vehicle without being obscured.

Also, sourclams. Its easy to make almost any rule text say what you want it to say when yout ake it out of context, and change words inside of it ...

Armor and Invulnerable saves specify wounds. Cover saves do not.

Sourclams is Correct.

mon-keigh slayer wrote:
Also, sourclams. Its easy to make almost any rule text say what you want it to say when yout ake it out of context, and change words inside of it ...

I replaced a defined game term (the word 'units') with the definition of the game term given by the rulebook. My rule quote was neither out of context, nor were 'words changed' except to add the definition of a defined game term.

Sourclams - except that the only way for you to be considered obscured within the Cover Saves context is to look at the rules on page 16, which define an infantry model....so while it does not explicitly state wounds a) the entire section does, under the main heading, thus setting context, and b) in any case it only gives you permission to determine cover saves in relation to a non-vehicle model.

So again, it may receive a cover save, but without being obscured it does not have permission to use that save against hits. This ONLY comes from the Obscured section in the vehicle rules

Sourclams is certainly hitting the nail on the head. An obscured vehicle is a vehicle that can take a cover save. But you don't have to be obscured to receive a cover save if something grants it.

Basically what I am saying is being obscured is not the end all be all for a vehicle to receive a cover save, just like units in cover can physically be out of cover as long as their is a piece of war-gear or spell to grant one.

Even the RB calls a vehicle that is obscured as taking a 'cover save'. Saying that a cover save is a save only taken against 'wounds' obviously is not right. It says physically in the RB that a vehicle can take a cover save just like a non-vehicle model can against a 'wound'. There is no such thing as an 'obscured save' Obscured is just a state the vehicle is in if you only see less than 50% of it. When in that state, the vehicle may take a 'cover save' as noted above. So, any thing that can grant a special cover save (wargear/spell) most certainly can grant it to a vehicle.

Basically what I am saying is being obscured is not the end all be all for a vehicle to receive a cover save, just like units in cover can physically be out of cover as long as their is a piece of war-gear or spell to grant one.

Technically by RaW there is no mechanism to take a cover save against anything other than a wound. The only case where you are allowed (by RaW) to take a cover save against a glancing or penetrating hit is if they have the status obscured.

So yes the vehicles do indeed get the cover save under RaW but it is of little use to them as they can only use it against wounds. This is strict RaW.

However that doesn't change the rules which are clearly that a vehicle can take this cover save and that vehicles take saves against penetrating and glancing hits instead of wounds. Anyone claiming that the rules are different are claiming that GW intentionally gave Bjorn an invulnerable save he can not use which is a ludicrous position to hold.

FlingitNow wrote:However that doesn't change the rules which are clearly that a vehicle can take this cover save and that vehicles take saves against penetrating and glancing hits instead of wounds.

Huh? What are you talking about? The rules are very clear that you CANNOT take this cover save, because the vehicle is not obscured. Anyone saying otherwise is NOT following the rules.

Anyone claiming that the rules are different are claiming that GW intentionally gave Bjorn an invulnerable save he can not use which is a ludicrous position to hold.

Why is it "ludicrous"? Because you say so?

FlingitNow wrote:
Anyone claiming that the rules are different are claiming that GW intentionally gave Bjorn an invulnerable save he can not use which is a ludicrous position to hold.

And you can say with 100% truthfulness and a straight face that GW write pefectly legible and comprehensible rules?

Did GW intentionally give an unusable invulnerable save? No. Did GW unintentionally give him an unusable save? Looks like it.

GW have intentially written a caveat for vehicles/MC that states the a vehicle/MC must be obscured before it can take the benefit of any cover.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that this makes sense or is fair, but we are arguing that this is what the rules as written, not as intended or what is fair, conclude.

Cheers

Andrew

I agree with Sourclams. People have gotten the 'RAW' mightily confused here.

Page 62 of the rulebook explains how to take a cover save with a vehicle.

Now, NORMALLY this cover save is granted via being 'obscured' but there is no rule stating this is the only possible way for a vehicle to be granted a cover save.

Other special rules, such as Storm Caller grant all units within a specified distance a cover save...that's all the RAW you need in order to grant the vehicle a cover save and then you simply refer to page 62 to determine what a successful cover save does for a vehicle.


So to put it succinctly:


P1. Stormcaller grants all units within 6" a cover save (pg 37 of the SW codex combined with the GW errata).
P2. Page 62 of the rules, 'vehicles and cover -- obscured targets': "If the [cover] save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table."

C1. If a vehicle within 6" of a model using Stormcaller suffers a hit the player may make a cover save and if successfully passed, no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table.

And you can say with 100% truthfulness and a straight face that GW write pefectly legible and comprehensible rules?

No which is entirely my point

Did GW intentionally give an unusable invulnerable save? No. Did GW unintentionally give him an unusable save? Looks like it.

Then you agree that the rules are that he does get the save, but that RaW denies him this.

GW have intentially written a caveat for vehicles/MC that states the a vehicle/MC must be obscured before it can take the benefit of any cover.

Wrong actually the caveat only applies to those models using the cover save against penetrating or glancing hits. Hence the caveat was clearly not intentional in that they wished to differentiate how vehicles got cover and were considered obscured or hull down as opposed to infantry. Not that obscured is the only way a model can use a save against glancing/penetrating hit. I think they'd assumed we could work out Vehicles take saves from glancing and penetrating hits as described in that section of the rules irregardless of how they've aquired that save (being give an inv. save or being given a cover save from some other means).

I don't think anyone here is arguing that this makes sense or is fair, but we are arguing that this is what the rules as written, not as intended or what is fair, conclude.

Yes I agree that this is RaW I've said so many times, but that does not make it the rules as it is clearly not the case.

sourclams wrote:Armor and Invulnerable saves specify wounds. Cover saves do not.

Yep. To bad they could not just errata bjorn's rule to say:

"Bjorn ingores a penetrating or glancing hit on a 5+" or something similar.

Why make it an invul save? How freaking stupid.

GW at it's best...

Why make it an invul save? How freaking stupid.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand vehicles take saves against penetrating and glancing hits? How freaking stupid...

Yakface - except you have removed the first sentence from that quote, the one which defines how to redefine the cover save:

BRB page 62 wrote:
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound

Therefore "this cover save", referenced in the next sentence, can only be a cover save that is a result of being obscured - you MUST be obscured first before you can use a cover save against hits

FlingitNow wrote:

Why make it an invul save? How freaking stupid.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand vehicles take saves against penetrating and glancing hits? How freaking stupid...

Except for the fact you are forgetting we are not talking about any save, but invul saves. Invul saves are taken vs wounds.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yakface - except you have removed the first sentence from that quote, the one which defines how to redefine the cover save:

BRB page 62 wrote:
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound

Therefore "this cover save", referenced in the next sentence, can only be a cover save that is a result of being obscured - you MUST be obscured first before you can use a cover save against hits

Re-read cover save on page 21.

In it you will find that cover saves are only granted to models (referring to infantry in the examples) by those models being 'obscured' from the point of the view of the firer (pg. 21 "When any part of the target model's body is 'obscured' from the pint of view of the firer, the target model is in cover")

Going by your own logic, then all models need to be obscured every single time or between objects in area terrain to receive a cover save. Because by your logic, being obscured is the only way to receive cover. Obviously not. We know models have other ways to receive and grant cover yet the RB covers *none* of those other methods of receiving cover except by being 'obscured' in some way or being between terrain pieces given via area terrain.

Basically, all units can receive a cover save from a spell/war-gear that grants it or no unit does...and we know the answer.