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.

Gwar! wrote:

tjdieter2191 wrote:How does the vehicle have a cover save, but cannot use it? You either have, or have not. You can't have both.

Easy. It has a cover save it can use against wounds. It can use it just fine, whenever it takes a wound.

I like what you did there.

But in spite of Gwar's obfuscation, you will find that Game As Played is that they vehicles get their cover saves just fine, in spite of not having wounds. So RAW, no, no cover saves, but go ahead and use them anyways.

don_mondo wrote:But in spite of Gwar's obfuscation, you will find that Game As Played is that they vehicles get their cover saves just fine, in spite of not having wounds. So RAW, no, no cover saves, but go ahead and use them anyways.

Funny, in my "Game as Played" we follow the rules. Yes, I know thats a horrible thing to do given the reaction I get from Dakka when I mention it, but it happens nonetheless.

Yeah, I know. We really ought to stop picking on you so much. But I promise, we ever get together, first round is on me!

don_mondo wrote:But in spite of Gwar's obfuscation, you will find that Game As Played is that they vehicles get their cover saves just fine, in spite of not having wounds. So RAW, no, no cover saves, but go ahead and use them anyways.

But again don you are not given permission to use them
"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 around"
Are you odscured? No then no cover save may be taken.

ChrisCP wrote:Hey Mr. tjdieter2191 and any other doubters - I'm going to quote a couple of bit from the rulebook and wait for you to address how and why your argument ignores them.

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry"

"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 around"

"If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to avehicle the ability of being obscured even if in theopen, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex."

"but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save. "

QFT

Sweet. Still nobody seems to understand that the rules are written implicitly, and codex trumps rulebook. When rulebook and codex are in contradiction, the codex always wins. So if the codex says you get a save, then you get a save. When it states that 'if the target is obscured... it may take a cover save against it' that doesn't mean that is when you are obscured is the only time that you get a cover save against a glancing or penetrating hit. The statement that you get a cover save for when you are obscured has no bearing on whether you get a cover save elsewhere. The codex rule of 'friendly units within 6 inches receive a 5+ cover save' is an addendum to the rulebook rules. It changes what is normally allowed, and gives the vehicle a cover save even though it is not obscured. So you can think of it being written as (with the codex addendum):

"If the target is obscured, or is granted a cover save by stormcaller/shield of sanginius, 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"

tjdieter2191 wrote:and codex trumps rulebook.

This is where I stopped reading because you have just proven that you have no idea how the rules work.

The Codex does NOT always trump the rulebook. If it did, Sweeping Advance wouldn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tjdieter2191 wrote:"If the target is obscured, or is granted a cover save by stormcaller/shield of sanginius, 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"

Awesome, I didn't know we were adding stuff to the rules now! Looks like all my Blood Claws are T10 with a 2+ Invulnerable save and a 72" assault move!

tjdieter2191 wrote:
"If the target is obscured, or is granted a cover save by stormcaller/shield of sanginius, 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"

Hey, if you make up rules and pretend they're quotes then your interpretation totally works!

No, a vehicle must be obscured to use cover saves.
There is only one rule in the book that allows it to work that way, and it is quite specific on that single requirement.

What do you mean sweeping advance wouldn't work?

And no, I didn't add stuff to the rules, the codex did, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I said it was just a way to look at it.

tjdieter2191 wrote:What do you mean sweeping advance wouldn't work?

Read the Sweeping Advance rules.

Are you referring to the 'no save or special rule can save them at this stage'?

tjdieter2191 wrote:Are you referring to the 'no save or special rule can save them at this stage'?

Yes. If Codex always over-rules rulebook, you could say "I have WBB!" or "My Codex says I get an Armour save, so I can!". Specific Rules Trump general rules. Normally this means Codex Trumps Rulebook, but this is Not always the case. Keep this in mind.

As such, the SPECIFIC Rules for Cover Saves for Vehicles trump the General Rules for all cover saves. Thus, a Vehicle with a cover save that is not also obscured can only use that save vs wounds, which a vehicle will never take because it doesn't have any.

You do get WBB after sweeping advance... but that's a different discussion altogether..

But okay, I don't believe either of us will be able to convince the other. But thank you for the intelligent and civil debate. Hopefully GW covers this in their FAQ. Have you added it to your own?

tjdieter2191 wrote:You do get WBB after sweeping advance... but that's a different discussion altogether..?

No, you don't. What part of "NO SPECIAL RULE CAN SAVE THEM" is unclear?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tjdieter2191 wrote: Have you added it to your own?

No, I don't add questions that have answers that are blindingly obvious, such as this one.

Wow, and wbb vs sweeping advance rears its ugly head amidst all this finger in the ear nonono im right.

As gwar said you get a 5+ cover save, you can only use it against WOUNDS unless youre obscured.

also wbb cant save you from being swept.

Since a vehicle is a unit, I dont see how a special rule stating "friendly units receive a 5+ cover save" can even be considered being argued against by any edited for inflammatory language person. If it states it gives the vehicle(or unit) a cover save, it gets a cover save unless the cover save is ignored(flamers), end of story.

EDIT: thus, when the vehicle recieves a pen/glance it can roll 5+ and not receive the pen or glance.

IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote:Since a vehicle is a unit, I dont see how a special rule stating "friendly units receive a 5+ cover save" can even be considered being argued against by any not-stupid person. If it states it gives the vehicle(or unit) a cover save, it gets a cover save unless the cover save is ignored(flamers), end of story.

EDIT: thus, when the vehicle recieves a pen/glance it can roll 5+ and not receive the pen or glance.

You may notice, if you scroll up and read the previous page, the dozen+ posts addressing this issue using the rules in the rulebook.
You are incorrect, by the rules.

You, yourself, on this very page, quoted a post saying that you are wrong with the relevant rules quotes and replied 'QFT'. I'm not sure where you get off calling literate people making rules-based arguments 'stupid'.

IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote:Since a vehicle is a unit, I dont see how a special rule stating "friendly units receive a 5+ cover save" can even be considered being argued against by any not-stupid person. If it states it gives the vehicle(or unit) a cover save, it gets a cover save unless the cover save is ignored(flamers), end of story.

EDIT: thus, when the vehicle recieves a pen/glance it can roll 5+ and not receive the pen or glance.

1) Noone is saying they dont receive a cover save. Seriously, reread others posts and note that noone is saying the dont HAVE a cov er save

2) You can only use cover saves againsdt wounds. Page 20/21 states this

3) The only way to USE a cover save against HITS is to be obscured. See the vehicle rules.

Therefore while you may HAVE a cover save you can only USE it against WOUNDS unless you are obscured.

What part of HAVE is not the same as USE is so hard for you to understand?

ANything else is breaking the rules.

I think Iggy is trying to use the common sense argument, but unfortunately common sense is rare in these parts.


I know all they gamers I play with run strict RAW. To bad for that iyanden player that can't fire any of his wraithguard units since they don't have eyes... Oh and also the tyranid players are suffering under the new codex since half the models don't exist so they can't be modeled on supplied bases... /sarcasm

Sorry, why is it "common" sense that they are affected?

Saying "but they changed it to units!!!!" doesnt mean anything, as "quads" didnt exist *at all* in the codex.

Indeed they changed it to units because people are lacking in common sense, and would make ridiculous arguments that the power doesn't do anything.


For further reading please see ZOMG!!!11!! Doom of M. has no inv save!!!

Clthomps wrote:Indeed they changed it to units because people are lacking in common sense, and would make ridiculous arguments that the power doesn't do anything.


For further reading please see ZOMG!!!11!! Doom of M. has no inv save!!!

So in other words you have nothing to back your argument up?

good one! you win the internetz!

Clthomps wrote:Indeed they changed it to units because people are lacking in common sense, and would make ridiculous arguments that the power doesn't do anything.

And how does the change provide any support for vehicles somehow being able to use a cover save against hits while unobscured?

Gorkamorka wrote:

Clthomps wrote:Indeed they changed it to units because people are lacking in common sense, and would make ridiculous arguments that the power doesn't do anything.

And how does the change provide any support for vehicles somehow being able to use a cover save against hits while unobscured?

It doesn't.

@ Nos:
Well how about the Idea of a massive blizzard covering a max unit of Thunder Wolves, but not a land speeder... Does that make sense? Everyone I know resorts to the common sense model when rules are in question.

@ gork: The connotations of the word "squad" is more than a handful of troops. The connotations of "unit" are singular or plural.

Clthomps wrote:@ Nos:
Well how about the Idea of a massive blizzard covering a max unit of Thunder Wolves, but not a land speeder... Does that make sense? Everyone I know resorts to the common sense model when rules are in question.

It doesn't have to. The rules are very clear in this instance.

Gwar! wrote:

tjdieter2191 wrote:How does the vehicle have a cover save, but cannot use it? You either have, or have not. You can't have both.

Easy. It has a cover save it can use against wounds. It can use it just fine, whenever it takes a wound.

If you find this a functional and productive reading of the rules, then I respectfully submit that you might find more receptive audiences if you clearly distinguished between your read of RaW vs RaP.

Mannahnin wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

tjdieter2191 wrote:How does the vehicle have a cover save, but cannot use it? You either have, or have not. You can't have both.

Easy. It has a cover save it can use against wounds. It can use it just fine, whenever it takes a wound.

If you find this a functional and productive reading of the rules, then I respectfully submit that you might find more receptive audiences if you clearly distinguished between your read of RaW vs RaP.

This is a functional and productive reading of the rules, and it is how I play the game. It is, coincidently, what the rules say, but this is my "RaP" nonetheless.

So under your interpretion, how did the wording change from "squads" to "units" change the way the power functions?