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.

Yes, because it has a cover save from being obscured, and can use that cover save BECAUSE it is obscured.

Have /= Use, which is the point you are missing.

Gwar! wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:Nowhere does it say that is the only possible situation that a vehicle could get a save,

Nowhere does it say I can't take a hammer to your kneecaps whenever I fail a save either.

The Rules tell you what you CAN do, not what you can't. The rules say you can take a cover save vs Pen or Glance if the vehicle is Obscured. It does not allow you to take them at any other time.

The Codex says you get a cover save if within 6" of the rune priest. Codex > BRB.


Ok everyone, I think too many people are taking RAI and using it as RAW.

The RAW is pretty simple
Codex Space Wolves w/ FAQ page 37
"At the beginning of his turn, the Rune Priest may summon a storm of psychic power that is centered around himself. Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save."

Then you go lookup Vehicles and Cover Saves on Page 62 of BRB
"If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table."

Boom! that is all the RAW there is for this. Every other argument on this topic is trying to apply context to the sentence on page 62 that was not explicitly written there. Whenever you apply additional context to a rule that was not part of the written rule itself, you are dealing with RAI.


But I will be happy to argue RAI for the moment with everyone. Lets start with the first sentence.
Page 62 of BRB
"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 (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). "

Ok, so this sentence states the following
IF you are obscured THEN you may take a cover save for your vehicle

This is a directional statement, it cannot be reversed so the following statement is NOT valid.
IF you may take a cover save for you vehicle THEN you are obscured

IF you could do this then the following analogy would be valid (which it isn't)
"all squares are rectangles" (true statement) could be reversed to "all rectangles are squares" (not a true statement as most rectangles are not squares). I will show more examples how how you can derive more faulty logic by reversing directional statement later on in my post.

Again, directional statements CANNOT be reversed and applied. Therefore, comments like the following.
"Vehicles can only take a cover save if they are obscured. "
or
"The rules say you can take a cover save vs Pen or Glance if the vehicle is Obscured. It does not allow you to take them at any other time"

are not valid statements based on RAW. They are RAI statements based on the interpretation of the commenter. The BRB only states that IF you are obscured THEN you may take a cover save, nothing more can be gleaned from this statement.

Lets now look at the Codex sentence, remember Codex trumps BRB.
Codex Space Wolves w/ FAQ page 37
"At the beginning of his turn, the Rune Priest may summon a storm of psychic power that is centered around himself. Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save."

This states the following.
IF you are within 6" of the Rune Priest THEN you benefit from a 5+ cover save.

Again no reversing allowed so this is not valid.
IF you benefit from a 5+ cover save THEN you are within 6" of the Rune Priest

It is easy to disprove this assertion because you can be behind High Grass, Crops, Bushes, Hedges or Fences and be further than 6" from the Rune Priest, yet receive a 5+ cover save. Like I said, you cannot reverse a directional statement and assume it is valid (ie. all rectangles are not squares).

So the Storm Caller power grants a cover save in the same fashion as being obscured grants a cover save to the vehicle. It single-handedly violates the assertion that you must be obscured to take a cover save. A cover save is granted, no matter its origin. If you concede that the storm caller power allows a cover save to be taken by the vehicle, then you must follow RAW on how to apply it.

Gwar has suggested that you go to the infantry wounding rules for the cover save and since they cannot be applied, there is no save. This is not the case, vehicles never use the infantry rules for anything unless it is explicitly stated as such (ie. walkers in the movement and combat phases). Therefore you must look for RAW in the Vehicles being Shot section of the BRB and under the cover saves paragraph, no other place in the rule book is appropriate (you cannot hop to a different unit type for BRB rules as you see fit, it must be explicitly permitted, otherwise I think I am going to start running my vehicles in lieu of shooting ). The first sentence in that paragraph has already been covered as

IF you are obscured THEN you may take a cover save for your vehicle

So now we look at the second sentence for RAW on how to handle cover saves on vehicles.
Page 62 of the BRB.
"If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table."

This states the following.
IF the cover save is passed THEN you discard the hit and no damage roll is made

Notice how once again we CANNOT reverse the statement and expect it to be true
IF you discard the hit and no damage roll is made THEN the cover save is passed

That is not a valid statement because you could hit the vehicle and fail to penetrate the armor, thus discarding the hit and not rolling on the damage table without a cover save being involved at all. I repeat, directional statements CANNOT be reversed and applied.

No where in the rule does it say if the save is passed and the vehicle is obscured, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table. That is adding additional context to the written rule that is not explicitly stated there, hence any assertion of that type is RAI. That may be your interpretation of the sentence, but that is not the strict RAW of it.

Now once you have a rule to allow a cover save to be taken,
IF you are within 6" of the Rune Priest THEN you benefit from a 5+ cover save.

and you have a rule of how to apply the cover save to a vehicle
IF the cover save is passed THEN you discard the hit and no damage roll is made

then you have no choice but to apply it as it is written in the rules and let the vehicle ignore damage rolls on a 5+ if it is in range of the rune priest and storm caller was successfully cast. That is my RAI.

Thank you,

No but it does say "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing orpenetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it,"

Sigh.

For the n'th time. The second sentence context and subject is the cover save from the first sentence. This is the sepcial permission needed to make a cover save that only works against Wounds work against Hits.

So no, it doesnt work, either RAI or RAW.

wolvesoffenris wrote:The Codex says you get a cover save if within 6" of the rune priest. Codex > BRB.

Funny how a wall of text is invalidated by the first line.

Codex does NOT always trump Rulebook. Specific trumps general,

Storm Caller Gives a General Cover save
Vehicles only use if if they are ALSO obscured.

The vehicle rule is more specific than the general cover rules.

*sigh* I wanted a runepriest rhino rush of doooM!

Do you think 3 rhino's* with 3 JotWW spewing out (paired with other useful powers such as Murderous hurricane, tempest wrath and living lightning), along with another 3 TL-lascannon razorbacks and 2 longfang rocketboat (and one plasma boat) rhino's are enough/worthy of bothering to contemplate as a list?

* Without that storm caller coversave (beside smoke launchers).

RTFBGB....

BGB page 62:

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as
infantry – their sheer size and bulk mean they cannot
take advantage of cover as well as infantry and other
smaller, more agile troops.

It then details the EXPLICIT cases where a vehicle is considered in cover.
This is boiled down to : 50% facing side that is being targeted is obscured.

It then EXPLICITLY states if a special rule or piece of wargear CONFER TO A VEHICLE THE ABILITY OF BEING OBSCURED if in the open it receives a cover save.

Smoke launchers, explicitly place the vehicle into obscured cover.

Does Storm Caller confer the Obscured ability? No, then no cover save.

Codex rules trump BRB.

If the SW codex says units get a cover save, they get a cover save.

The BRB says vehicles deep striking count as going cruising speed. Vehicles moving at cruising speed cannot fire.

The Black Templars codex says their drop pods may shoot upon landing. Therefore they can.

Pretty cut and dried. The Codex rule overrides any restrictions etc and ignores any terms. The rules say what you can and can't do....in this case, SW units get a 5+ cover save.

There is no such "obscured ability". Normally you get a cover save from being obscured. In this case, the power says it gives units a cover save. End of story.

Remember...this is a FANTASY game. You are looking for an explanation that does not exist. You're ok with Marines riding wolves and elves wearing pants, but not ok with a power that says a unit gets a cover save...

General Hobbs wrote:

Codex rules trump BRB.

If the SW codex says units get a cover save, they get a cover save.

The BRB says vehicles deep striking count as going cruising speed. Vehicles moving at cruising speed cannot fire.

The Black Templars codex says their drop pods may shoot upon landing. Therefore they can.

Pretty cut and dried. The Codex rule overrides any restrictions etc and ignores any terms. The rules say what you can and can't do....in this case, SW units get a 5+ cover save.

I agree with you 100%. If your Rhino takes a wound when the Storm Caller is there it gets to take a cover save.

No one is saying they (vehicles) don't recive a cover save, we are saying they do not have permission to use it against glance/pen hits untill they are obscured.



Sigh..... Time for a Mod-Lock again?

General Hobbs wrote:Codex rules trump BRB.

How can I put this..

NO

IT

DOESN'T

The Codex does NOT Trump the Rulebook. If it did, Sweeping Advance would not work.

If the SW codex says units get a cover save, they get a cover save.

Correct. The SW Codex does NOT say that vehicles become obscured. Therefore, this cover save, when applied to vehicles, can ONLY be used against wounds, which vehicles do not have.

"Obscured" is defined as any time a vehicle can "claim to be in cover."

So, the linchpin is this: when is a unit "in cover"?

The only time this is explicitly addressed is in the cover section. Any time a unit is "in cover" it has a cover save- in fact, terrain is solely described in terms of how it affects movement and the cover save it grants.

So, if a unit is in cover, it has a save. If a unit has a cover save, it is in cover-- "in cover" is solely described in functional terms.

So, if a vehicle can claim to be in cover, it is obscured. If it is obscured, its cover saves apply to Pens/Glances.

Will one of the RAW RAW RAW crowd please give me a better definition of cover if this one is unsatisfactory?

All the arguments to the contrary are hung up on the NORMAL rules for vehicles "in cover." But, "obscured" refers only to when a vehicle can claim to be in cover. NORMALLY, this requires 50% of a facing to be hidden. Stormcaller is NOT a 'normal' means of being "in cover."

kartofelkopf wrote:"Obscured" is defined as any time a vehicle can "claim to be in cover."

... And where is this said?

"At least 50% of the facing ... needs to be hidden... for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured."

When a vehicle can claim to be in cover, it is said to be obscured. Normally, this means 50% of the facing... but that is not the only manner in which a vehicle can claim to be in cover.

kartofelkopf wrote:"At least 50% of the facing ... needs to be hidden... for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured."

When a vehicle can claim to be in cover, it is said to be obscured. Normally, this means 50% of the facing... but that is not the only manner in which a vehicle can claim to be in cover.

Having a cover save doesn't mean you can claim to be in cover.

Then what defines "in cover?"

The only definition in the BRB is the functional one of the save it grants. p21 has all the definition to be found in the book. Cover is described SOLELY in terms of the save it confers (and how it affects movement, but that's not particularly pertinent here).

Razor wire IS a 6+ save. Gun pits ARE a 4+ save. There's no other way to describe cover outside of the save it grants.

it then goes to state that cover doesnt work the same way for vehicles as it does for infantry (see my quote) therefore the same assumptions can not be made for vehicles that you do with infantry...

It then goes to state, as i've said before, what cases the vehicle is in cover.

it states:
At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening items (terrain, units) to claim to be in cover. If this is the case the vehicle is said to be obscured.

it then also states:
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit it may take a cover save against it.

Therefore BGB RAW for cover saves against a tank explicitly state, in order for the tank to take a cover save it must be obscured. In order for it to be obscured it must be 50% or more covered by terrain or intervening units.

Because storm caller does not make the tank obscured in any way shape or form, it does not get its cover save.

Razor wire is not a cover save for a vehicle if it does not cover half the vehicles visible side, a gun pit that the tank may tower over does not obscure the tank to the required 50% of the hull visible to the shooter, from the shooters perspective.

And we are in agreement that a vehicle, with 50% of its facing hidden, can claim to be in cover, and is thus obscured.

The question, then, is what does it mean to be "in cover?"

Is a unit of infantry with stormcaller cast on them "in cover?"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seriphis wrote:

Therefore BGB RAW for cover saves against a tank explicitly state, in order for the tank to take a cover save it must be obscured. In order for it to be obscured it must be 50% or more covered by terrain or intervening units.

But, that's not at all what it says. It says that when a vehicle can "claim to be in cover" it is called "obscured."

The NORMAL means of achieving "in cover" is by hiding behind terrain/models.

Stormcaller puts the vehicle "in cover" (by granting it a cover save).


If you can present a rules-based alternative for defining "in cover," I'm all ears.

in cover for infantry is defined differently in the BGB, and for the purposes of storm caller i would call them in cover.

i think part of the issue that is coming up from this is that there is no height to the power. eg is it a circle on the ground, everything in that is 'in cover' or is everything inside the circle 'obscured'. For infantry there is mention of being obscured, but no requirement for it to be obscured, however with vehicles there is an exception made and a requirement for it to be considered obscured by explicit definition of obscured = in cover, not, in cover = obscured.

the best middle ground that i could imagine, making it a house rule would be to say if the side the tank was being shot on was 50% covered by the power, while assuming the power was a pillar with radius of the power's radius, it could, maybe, be considered obscured and allowed its cover save. If it is glanced on the opposite side of the vehicle to where the unit who is shooting at it is and the side the shooter is on is 0% obscured by the power then no, no cover save.

The bgb indicates that only if the target is obscured, eg, 50% of the face of armour is in cover, it is permitted to take a cover save against the damage. If the power can obscure 50% of the vehicle's targeted face from the shooter's point of view i could be swayed to allow the save.

Gwar! wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:Codex rules trump BRB.

How can I put this..

NO

IT

DOESN'T

The Codex does NOT Trump the Rulebook. If it did, Sweeping Advance would not work.

If the SW codex says units get a cover save, they get a cover save.

Correct. The SW Codex does NOT say that vehicles become obscured. Therefore, this cover save, when applied to vehicles, can ONLY be used against wounds, which vehicles do not have.

So Black Templar Drop Pods cannot shoot when they Deepstrike in?

General Hobbs wrote:So Black Templar Drop Pods cannot shoot when they Deepstrike in?

Yes, they can, because the rule found in the codex is more specific than the rule found in the Rulebook.

By your Logic, Sweeping Advance and Power Weapons do not work.

SA says "No Saves"
Codex Goes "I HAVE A SAVE"

Power Weapons say "No Armour Saves"
Codex Says "I HAVE AN ARMOUR SAVE"

Kartel - this is the exact same fallacious argument you made in the other thread.

Being "in cover" grants a cover save. this is "A implies B"

It is logically FALSE to state the reflection: having a cover save does NOT mean you are "in cover" - no matter how many times you try to say it, "B->A" cannot be shown to be true.

So no, simply HAVING a cover save does NOT mean you are "in cover", and certainly does not mean you are always obscured. thus, you are not obscured (unless by other means...) and therefore cannot USE your cover save agaisnt wounds.

General Hobbs - as has been pointed out to you, SPecific > General is what youre looking for. Here, SC gives you a cover save, but without saying (like Bjorn does) that you can use this cover save against HITS, it only works against wounds, as cover saves only work against wounds usually.

nos

And you continue to refuse to answer my simple questions (or back up your position with passages from the BRB). As for the logical fallacy, A = B is TRUE. I'm not saying "A implies B" I'm saying "A IS B." The reverse is also true... if A = B, B = A. If a unit is in cover = unit has a cover save. This is the case because "in cover" is only defined in the book in terms of granting a cover save.

1) What defines a unit as being "in cover?"

2) Is an infantry unit under the effects of Stormcaller "in cover?"

3) Is there any definition for being "in cover" outside of the functional one of "having a cover save?"

Again, let's try to cite examples from, you know, the rules.


edit for spelling

No, that is incorrect.

A unit being in cover implies it has a cover save. "in cover" is NOT equal to "cover save" at all. That is your failing. Page 21 "units IN or BEHIND cover RECIEVE a cover save"

if they were equal the word "recieve" would be entirely incorrect. In additon "When are models in cover?" givesw you the definition you are apparently incapable of reading: when any part of the target models body (...) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is IN COVER"

So, as can be seen: having a cover save is a *consequence* of being in cover, they are NOT equal.

So indeed you are doing the B implies A fallacy. Your A=B propoistion is false.

So, you know, can you counter with some rules in this thread? This is the 2nd thread in as many days where you have proposed this ruleless argument.

1) by being in or behind terrain, such that the mdoel is obscured by using true LOS OR the model is in area terrain. As above basically.

2) No they are not, they HAVe a cover save - they are not "in cover" as that is assuming the logical fallacy of B implies A is true. You cannot do this.

3) Yes, the one where you are told you have to be "obscured from the point of view of the firer"

So, over to you to again prpoopse the same debunked argument. Again.

Go to page 62 in the BRB. There is no explanation to what it means to be in cover. What it does say is that vehicles '...do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry.' It then states in specific terms what this means.

1 - At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle being hidden needs to be hidden...if this is the case the vehicle is said to be 'obscured'

-This defines specific language for vehicles and a specific state, that of being obscured. Next

2 - Vehicle are not obscured simply for being in area terrain

-Obscured is pretty important huh!

It then explicitly states: 'If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it....'

so...'Do you have a cover save?' Yes, cheers!
'Are you obscured?' No, bugger!

I do not understand how you can possibly argue a vehicle does not need to be obscured to take a cover save. It specifically tells you when you can take cover saves in the rules and prefaces it by telling you it does not operate like infantry.

Because they are confusing having a cover save with what that cover save allows you to do?

Cover saves are defined as working on wounds - as all saves are. So, in order to use that cover save against something else, "hits" as an example, you MUST have permission to do so.

The *only* permission comes from the line "If the vehicle is obscured" - if you are not obscured, then you do not have permission to follow the "true" part of the "if" statement.

The only possible way to argue otherwise is to claim that having a cover save -> "in cover" -> "obscured". This is such an illogical (the B->A fallacy) and frankly weird reading of the rules it cannot be supported.

The only possible way to argue otherwise is to claim that having a cover save -> "in cover" -> "obscured". This is such an illogical (the B->A fallacy) and frankly weird reading of the rules it cannot be supported.

I'd say the stronger counter argument would be that you assume all saves Vehicles take are against Glancing and Penetrating hits as they have no wounds. This is a very reasonable interpretation from the give rule set, though granted not backed up by any RaW at all just commonsense.

So to recap by RaW:

Yes you get a cover save. Without the obscured status there is no defined mechanism in the game to take that save against anything other than wounds. This makes the save without the obscured status somewhat useless to said vehcile. But it still has it and can take it against any wounds it receives.

By RaI:

Either

Obscured is very important and because it doesn't explicitely state you get the obscured status they mean for you to realise that means it can not be used by vehciles.

OR

Vehicles always take their saves against penetrating and glancing hits and it gives them a save. The reason obscured occurs in other similar wargear/effects is because obscured had a different meaning in 4th Ed and all incidences of this occur in 4th Ed codexes. Obscured now just grants you a cover save but is not the only way of aquiring it.


So RAW is definitely a no, RaI can be argued either way until GW rules on this or another similar effect (which would also change the RaW).

FlingitNow wrote:
Vehicles always take their saves against penetrating and glancing hits and it gives them a save. The reason obscured occurs in other similar wargear/effects is because obscured had a different meaning in 4th Ed and all incidences of this occur in 4th Ed codexes.

No 5th Ed smoke launchers exist?

As above - Smoke Launchers grant "obscured", and are definitley 5th ed.

So either they wrote obscured so they didnt have to bother writing "4+ cover save that can be taken against hits in the same way as wounds", or they *really* meant that Obscured was important.

Good point forgot about smoke launchers /facepalm. Looks far less cut and dried from an RaI point of veiw now and the RaW is totally cut and dried.