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.

Gorkamorka wrote:Claims to refute the argument presented by restating previously refuted argument

fix'd. Still waiting for a response that consists of more than 'I'm right because I said so earlier'

Show me that this statement isn't hypocrisy

Gorkamorka wrote:Ignore the rules in front of you all you want, they say what they say.

Culler - you ability to ignore the rules and then deny them is incredible.

How is "may be cancelled by making a saving throw" not how it is used? Making a saving throw is rolling the required set of numbers on the dice.

Unlike your inaccurate analogies (which are not comparable at all, for fairly obvious reasons) Saving Throws is defined as the superset - at other parts you are told you must take your *best* save, indicating each type of save is still, indeed a save. Especially as "saving throws" is the heading title, with sub-titles of each type of throw also telling you this.

Who'd have thought.

Play by what you think is RAI if you want, ignore the actual rules all you want, but the rules are clear:

- Cover saves work against wounds, by default. Page 20/21 backs this up as does the statement on page 62
- IF you are obscured THEN you may take a cover save against hits.

Unless you have another rule staitng something similar to this this is the only way you can take cover saves against *hits* and not wounds.

Note: use, not gain. Two very, very different words.

Kartof - no, *your* idea of what intent is is "obvious" to you. Not to other people. But that doesnt matter as your side does not have the rules to back up their arguments. Especially as you could no longer rebut my arguments, despite a request for a simple yes/no to one easy to answer question.

so what was the answer to the OP's question again?

usernamesareannoying wrote:so what was the answer to the OP's question again?

2.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Unlike your inaccurate analogies (which are not comparable at all, for fairly obvious reasons) Saving Throws is defined as the superset - at other parts you are told you must take your *best* save, indicating each type of save is still, indeed a save. Especially as "saving throws" is the heading title, with sub-titles of each type of throw also telling you this.

So cover saves are implied as being saving throws. Having a cover save affect units implies that even vehicle units can take cover saves. Look at the vehicle squadron rules as well, and how you allocate hits as you would allocate wounds and take any cover saves available to the squadron. another great implication.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Culler - you ability to ignore the rules and then deny them is incredible.

Your ability to cite specific semantics as being what must be followed for your non-intuitive point of view and then relying on things being 'implied' or 'circumstantial' to support it when evidence comes against is truly fantastic hypocrisy of the highest calibre.
Sweeping accusations are fun, teehee!

2, otherwise they are not obscrued and do not get to use their save against hits, only wounds.

So if 2/3 are obscured by the KFF, then the entire unit counts as obscure and gets a cover save?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kartof - no, *your* idea of what intent is is "obvious" to you. Not to other people. But that doesnt matter as your side does not have the rules to back up their arguments. Especially as you could no longer rebut my arguments, despite a request for a simple yes/no to one easy to answer question.

Well, be the better person then and answer me a yes/no:

Do you think the designer's intent was to allow vehicles to take cover saves and invulnerable saves against hits in the same fashion that saves are taken against wounds?

Before answering, consider Bjorn's invulnerable save, and the recent FAQ that specifically allows a power to grant a cover save (but not specifically obscurement) to a vehicle.

Did GW's most recent (until this week) codex and FAQ specifically create and then reinforce two non-functioning saves?

Hmm.... seems like pretty obvious RAI to me... and the people that write the rules, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pika_power wrote:So if 2/3 are obscured by the KFF, then the entire unit counts as obscure and gets a cover save?

If 2/3 are within 6", they get a 4+ save for being obscured. If just 1 is within 6", they get a 5+ save as 1 model in the unit is within range.

Some places allow a 4+ for just a single model within 6", but it's more correct to only allow that if there is a majority within 6".

At no point did they say the cover save applies to vehicles. the reason for the Errata was that "squads" did not exist at all - you have no evidence whatsover that they also meant to include vehicles. We're also talking *cover* saves here not invulnerables. They are two entirely seperate topics - one is your attempt to include *every* possible granting of a cover save to allow vehicles to take a save against hits, the other is a special character with badly written rules.

So, do you believe that page 62 is entirely redundant? You seem to believe that pages 20/21, despite defining "making saves" as saving against wounds, also covers saving against hits - thus making page 62s rule letting you take cover saves against hits redundant using your logic.

So, do you believe page 62 was a waste of a paragraphs worth of text? I asked first, 3 times now.

Pika_power - as noted with only 1 model in range they are granted a cover save that *cannot* be used against Hits unless at least 50% of the unit also count as obscured (in which case they are likely to get a better cover save than 5+ anyway)

This is both the RAW answer AND is as likely RAI as any other answer. Neither side can show intent any stronger than the other, in which case going for the weaker option *and* the one that is supported in the rules is the only sensible answer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Pika_power - as noted with only 1 model in range they are granted a cover save that *cannot* be used against Hits unless at least 50% of the unit also count as obscured (in which case they are likely to get a better cover save than 5+ anyway)

I don't care about the 5+. I care about the 4+ given because they're obscured. If I have 50% of the unit in KFF range, do they count as getting a 4+ cover?

I don't think anyone could dispute that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So, do you believe that page 62 is entirely redundant? You seem to believe that pages 20/21, despite defining "making saves" as saving against wounds, also covers saving against hits - thus making page 62s rule letting you take cover saves against hits redundant using your logic.

So, do you believe page 62 was a waste of a paragraphs worth of text? I asked first, 3 times now.

No, as I (and others) have said already, p62 addresses exceptions to -the normal cover rules-. KFF, psychic powers, etc... are -not- normal means of getting cover.

And, unless I read it wrong, the SW FAQ said it applies to ALL units-- which would include vehicles.

Further, the reason the Invul save came up is you keep touting cover as a saving throw-- no one is contesting this (although, the rules for cover deal with damage... and do not mention wounds, despite both armor and invul specifying wounds [but, but, it's in the saving throw sections zomg!!])


Either way, you failed to answer my question-- do you think Bjorn's save and the FAQ allowing cover saves for vehicles was just GW having a bit of a go at us?


Also, why do you keep chanting RAW like it's some kind of mantra? If your answer was pure RAW, there'd be no discussion. Your answer is RAI (indeed, all rules come down to some degree of RAI), and an outright refusal to even address that in answering people's questions is not very helpful to them, and injurious to the hobby as a whole.

If I follow this clearly, 50% means 2/3 models in this context. You need 2/3 Walkers from a sqaud, within 6" of a KFF to receive an obscured save.

If the majority of a models base (to get specific here, toes do not grant cover to the whole model) is within KFF range, then it counts towards that 2/3 models necessary for a 4+ cover save.

At the point that you determine this, deal with it as any area terrain would be, when dealing with infantry. That is to say, again, that toes and other extremities are simply not enough to claim cover.

As I understand it at least, and it makes sense to me. A 50 point upgrade, capable of inferring a 4+ save onto 9 walkers (plus whatever troops happen to be within range), should be relatively rigid in use.

Wrexasaur - Only 1mm of the base needs to be in range for the model to be considered to be in range, not 1/2 or greater. Measuring ranges tells you this

Kartof - no, page 62 deals with how VEHICLES gain the ability to *use* cover saves against *hits.* It is right there in the rules on page 62. You ignore this and pretend it isnt needed.

Secondly despite repeated attempts to hammer thi point home to you you are apparently incapable: I am *not* disputing that the vehicles get a cover save. They do. Yes, they do. Can you at least acknowledge this? You're currently mantra-like completely ignoring this, almost as if it would undermine your argument....

What I am disputing, and have given rules to support my position (while you havea lack of such, just a "RAI" approach unsupported by anything written) is that Cover Saves, by default, only work on Wounds.

Pages 20/21 deal with WOUNDS. As Gorkamorka quoted to you the entire section is predicated on Saving Throws saving wounds. It is right there in the very first parapraph. Please, continue to ignore this - the rules are very clear.

So, page 62 tells you that IF you are obscured you can THEN take a cover save (that you already have, or gain from being obscured) against HITS in the same way as non=vehicles save against wounds

Page 62 is the *only permission given in the entire BRB to use Cover Saves against hits* - you have FAILED to show permission elsewhere, therefore you do not have permission. Simple as that.

So - the SW errata does *not* specify the save is granted to vehicles, the errata specifies units which *includes* vehicles. There is a difference there - you still dont have anything stating it SHOULD work with vehicles, as that was not specifically addressed. They changed it from "squads", which indicates non-vehicles, as these dont exist in the SW codex. So the clearest RAI is that they meant non-vehicles before, nothing indicates tehy mean vehicles now, so they dont. And that neatly ties in with the actual rules not allowing vehicles to take saves against hits using the cover save provided by this power.


Finally: The answer *is* pure RAW: Saves are, by the rules, against wounds only. You need permission to use saves against Hits, which page 62 provides for Cover Saves - but to do so you must first be obscured. So until you are obscured you may have something (the cover save) but no way to use it in a useful manner.

Just in case that was too long for you: I agree the vehicle receives a cover save, however as the rules state unless the vehicle is *first* obscured you have no permission to *use* it

Have /= Use

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrexasaur - Only 1mm of the base needs to be in range for the model to be considered to be in range, not 1/2 or greater. Measuring ranges tells you this

Nitpick: Technically it has to be 1 Planck Length. If the base was only 0.9 mm in range it still counts

OK, when you have that PLanck Length measuring laser you were building let me know, unless the rum/gin got in the way

Hi
I am stunned that my question could get this much attention : )

There seems to be some opinions on the details, but can I assume that I need 2/3 of the squadron inside to get cover save against hits? If so, what will happen i I only have 1 Kan inside the KFF? Will only that one recieve a 4+ cover or noone at all? I guess the 5+ cover save was intented for wounds only.

a94marbo wrote:Will only that one recieve a 4+ cover or noone at all? I guess the 5+ cover save was intented for wounds only.

I'm not going to get into the involvement of squadrons with the KFF, as I think the rules are too loosely written to make a call there. I would probably play it as the squadron gaining the cover save if at least one kan is within 6", on the grounds that only one member of a unit needs to be within 6" for the 'unit' to be within 6" of something. I'm not going to pretend that's RAW, though, as the RAW is murky.

I should point out for the sake of completeness though that there is some debate over whether vehicles gain a 4+ or a 5+ cover save from the KFF, based around whether or not the 5+ listed as applying to 'units within 6"' is specific enough to satisfy the '4+ unless otherwise specified part of the Obscured Targets rule. Not pointing it out to re-open the discussion here... just to suggest that it's something that is worth discussing with your opponent to ensure you're both on the same page.

Hm, I'm not going to attempt to attack the problem of obscurement vs. cover. However I would like to point out one hole in the RAW crowd's interpretation. It is constantly pointed out that cover saves may only taken against "wounds" and not "hits". I'd like to remind you that the save granted by obscured status (at the very least) is not taken against a "hit" but a "glancing or penetrating hit", which is much more analogous with a "wounding hit"(aka a wound) than just a "hit".

Adamah wrote:Hm, I'm not going to attempt to attack the problem of obscurement vs. cover. However I would like to point out one hole in the RAW crowd's interpretation. It is constantly pointed out that cover saves may only taken against "wounds" and not "hits". I'd like to remind you that the save granted by obscured status (at the very least) is not taken against a "hit" but a "glancing or penetrating hit", which is much more analogous with a "wounding hit"(aka a wound) than just a "hit".

I fail to see the hole here. Would you allow a model with lightning claws to re-roll for armour penetration? Would you allow a Vindicator to roll to dice and pick the highest to wound because it is ordnance?

Adamah wrote:Hm, I'm not going to attempt to attack the problem of obscurement vs. cover. However I would like to point out one hole in the RAW crowd's interpretation. It is constantly pointed out that cover saves may only taken against "wounds" and not "hits". I'd like to remind you that the save granted by obscured status (at the very least) is not taken against a "hit" but a "glancing or penetrating hit", which is much more analogous with a "wounding hit"(aka a wound) than just a "hit".

There is no hole here, "hit" is a useful shorthand for "glancing or penetrating hit" and has been used as such throughout the thread.

Wounds /= Glancing or Penetrating hit, the two items are entirely dissimilar - "to penetrate" is entirely different in rules and application to "to wound", as evidenced by LLightning Claws having no special function against vehicles.

In short: no, they are not analogous concepts apart frmo they are both a precondition to causing any damage.