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.

....unless the item specifies differently.

the reason I believe it doesnt need an "always" in front of it is that the "if obscured...." part is the only part that tells you HOW to use a cover save for vehicles. And that sentence IS contingent on your being obscured, oitherwise you cannot read the further sentence.

GW appear to belive you CAN use non-obscured cover saves for vehicles, but they also believe you can make Initiative tests on a unit basis (Hit and Run) when there is no mechanism for doing so.

Nos, how do you reconcile taking this restrictive view of cover saves for vehicles with not taking the same restrictive view of cover saves for other models?

You are still functionally inserting an "only" at the start of the "If the target is obscured and suffers..." sentence, when the actual sentence in the rulebook contains no "only".

Edit: woops thought this was a new topic.

Skull boy, you might want to review the "Tenets of You Make Da Call" thread, stickied at the top of this forum.

Mannahnin wrote:Nos, how do you reconcile taking this restrictive view of cover saves for vehicles with not taking the same restrictive view of cover saves for other models?

You are still functionally inserting an "only" at the start of the "If the target is obscured and suffers..." sentence, when the actual sentence in the rulebook contains no "only".

Because you have the method for taking saves on models with wounds elsewhere - once you have a cover save you know how to make it.

"If obscured" (which is how the sentence starts for vehicles) gives you a condition you must fulfil. You cannot show permission to read that sentence unless you are obscured - which means you cannot determine how you perform the save on vehicles. There is, functionally, an "only" there, as there is no other method given for determining how to take cover saves for vehicles unless you are already obscured.

Note that storm caller hasnt changed in its incarnation between the previous codex and this one, and when this first came up about 2 years ago with Stormcaller the consensus, eventually, was it didnt work on vehicles - as it gave you no way to know how to take the save on a vehicle. (obviously it didnt matter under 4th ed era as vehicles couldnt take them at all)

It appears that the reason people have changed their mind on allowing it (yourself, Yakface) is simply that GW KEEP ON writing "unit gets cover save" - meaning the intent is that vehicles get them (espeically with the BA codex) but they have yet to give any rules on how to do so.

Exactlyt he same for Flickerfield - there are NO rules for vehicles and invulnerable saves, not in general anyway - so you cant point at Bjorn and say this is how it is done.

There is a gap in the rules, which GW doesnt appear to either want to acknowledge or they dont realise is there.

What do you mean you have a method?

Pages 21-23 ONLY tell you that a unit can make cover saves if obscured by terrain and other units. Just as Page 62 only tells you that a vehicle can make cover saves if obscured.

Take a look at page 21 again. There's nothing there implying or explictly stating that you can get cover saves from anything other than terrain or other units.

A reading which results in a conclusion that Flickerfields don't work or Shield of Sanguinius has no effect is a non-functional reading.

I think page 22, the second and third paragraphs of the Units partially in cover section, makes the case more directly. Those two paragraphs can be read to place regular models in exactly the same situation that vehicles are claimed to be in: if the unit is not "in cover" (or "obscured" for vehicles) then "none of the models may take cover saves".

Therefore Bikes turbo-boosting in the open receive a cover save that they can't use. It's the same logic as denying a vehicle use of a cover save because it's not obscured.

Exactly.

First section of page 21 lets you take any saving throw you have due to an ability or wargear. So taking a cover save is allowable as the entire cover save section only actually talks about what cover is, and if you are in it, it does not actually show you how to make the save - thats in the armour save section.

However none of this relates to knowing how to apply the saving mechanic to Hits, whcih only talks about "if obscured" - and if you are not obscured where do you receive permission from?

Yes, it is a gap in the rules. AS I pointed out GW may be oblivious to it, or just not consider it important enough to errata.

nosferatu1001 wrote:First section of page 21 lets you take any saving throw you have due to an ability or wargear.

What are you talking about? Where's the express permission you're requiring from page 62?

Page 21, first section wrote:Cover Saves
A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid harm. Because of this units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw.

Emphasis mine.

This paragraph only grants permission to use a cover save if the unit is "in or behind cover". Same as page 62 only grants explicit permission for a vehicle to make a cover save if it is obscured.

Go on and read the next two paragraphs ("What counts as Cover" and "When are models in cover") and it's even more clear. You are given explicit permission to take a cover save if obscured by terrain, but nothing whatsoever is said or implied about wargear, special rules, or psychic powers.

How about the next section?

Intervening Models
If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models, it receives a 4+ cover save in the same was as if it was behind terrain.

The fact that paragraph 6 on page 62 tells you that a vehicle can take a cover save if it is obscured does not mean that it can only do so under that circumstance, any more than the fact that every single reference to being eligible for a cover save on pages 21-23 is predicated on the model being in cover means that only a model in cover can make a cover save.

1) First paragraph, top of page 21 as I directed you to.

"by making a saving throw. ......some other protective device or ability"

So if you have a protective device or ability you can take a saving throw.

2) No, that sentence does not state that. It states you receive a cover save.

It does NOT say that ONLY if you are in cover do you receive a cover saving throw. Now you're the one inserting "only" implicitly through your argument!

3) My argument is that the only way you know HOW to make ANY FORM of "vehicle saving throw" is by following the directive "if obscured"

If you are not obscured, you never know HOW to take the save.

Contrast that to the entirety of the Cover Save section, which merely tells you how to determine if you have a cover save

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) First paragraph, top of page 21 as I directed you to.

"by making a saving throw. ......some other protective device or ability"

So if you have a protective device or ability you can take a saving throw.

First, that's page 20, not page 21. When you cite a page, and I quote that exact page and section and it doesn't say what you claimed it does, you might want to double-check your facts.

Second, that first paragraph on page 20 which you just quoted applies equally to vehicles as it does to non-vehicle units.

nosferatu1001 wrote:2) No, that sentence does not state that. It states you receive a cover save.

It does NOT say that ONLY if you are in cover do you receive a cover saving throw. Now you're the one inserting "only" implicitly through your argument!

I'm inserting the exact same "only" that you are inserting on page 62. I am pointing out that your argument hinges on inconsistent and contradictory readings of pages 21-23 and page 62.

Both sections are equally restrictive/permissive, their language in both cases failing to mention that the units in question can obtain cover saves by means of wargear, special rules, or psychic powers. It is inexplicable to me why you are treating them differently.

nosferatu1001 wrote:3) My argument is that the only way you know HOW to make ANY FORM of "vehicle saving throw" is by following the directive "if obscured"

If you are not obscured, you never know HOW to take the save.

Contrast that to the entirety of the Cover Save section, which merely tells you how to determine if you have a cover save

I disagree entirely that you need an obscured vehicle to read and use the rules contained on paragraph 6 of page 62. "Obscured" is one criteria for a vehicle gaining a cover save, but is not described or listed as being the only way a vehicle gets a cover save. The first paragraph of page 20 gives general permission for all models to get saves, and para 6, p.62 leads off with the most common means of a vehicle gaining a cover save. This is no more the only way a vehicle can get a cover save than the rules on pages 21-23 are the only way for a non-vehicle unit to get a cover save.

Again, paragraph 2 of page 62 lists the bulleted conditions as "exceptions to the normal rules for cover", that is, the ones on pages 21-23. None of which explicitly allow, or forbid, gaining cover saves by other means.

Actually the first section of taking saves explains they are for saving against wounds - so no, they do NOT apply equally to woundless vehicles.

How are you obtaining permission from "if obscured...."? If you cannot fulfill the requirement of the rule you cannot read further. Unless you do not see "if obscured" as a requirement?

Note: I am being precise with terms. Vehicles can obtain saves, I have no issue with them obtaining the status "cover save" by any means at their disposal. Can they use them, is what I am stating - I keep using "use", you keep stating "gain".

The only way to know how to use a save against Hits is by following the "if obscured...." line - and if you dont see this requirement as a requirement like I do, then we really will keep on going round in circles!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually the first section of taking saves explains they are for saving against wounds - so no, they do NOT apply equally to woundless vehicles.

The first paragraph of the section "Take Saving Throws" on page 20 never mentions wounds. It grants blanket permission for models to take saves, and applies just as well to vehicles as to non-vehicle units. Later paragraphs do mention wounds, in relation to units of identical or differing models, which isn't terribly relevant to vehicles. Vehicles have their own rules for squadrons later.

nosferatu1001 wrote:How are you obtaining permission from "if obscured...."? If you cannot fulfill the requirement of the rule you cannot read further. Unless you do not see "if obscured" as a requirement?

Exactly. Just like Yak, and every player I've ever met in real life, I read "If obscured..." as permission for a vehicle to gain and using a cover save, but not exclusive permission.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Note: I am being precise with terms. Vehicles can obtain saves, I have no issue with them obtaining the status "cover save" by any means at their disposal. Can they use them, is what I am stating - I keep using "use", you keep stating "gain".

The only way to know how to use a save against Hits is by following the "if obscured...." line - and if you dont see this requirement as a requirement like I do, then we really will keep on going round in circles!

Here I agree that it looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree and walk away. I do not believe that a functional reading of the rulebook can legitimately conclude that a vehicle could gain a cover save but be unable to use it. The two go inextricably hand in hand, unless the cover save is cancelled by another special rule (like a template weapon).

I recognize that we frequently use YMDC as a resource to find out what the rules actually say as opposed to how we would play them on the table, but in my firm opinion, if there is any ambiguity it makes far more sense to choose the reading that actually functions at the table. An interpretation resulting in the conclusion that a vehicle can GAIN a cover save but never USE it, is not a functional one. It is no help to the game or the players.

Personally I think the rule is reasonably clear, particularly when taken in context with the rules on pages 20-23. But even if one thinks that it is ambiguous, the fact that under my reading (that vehicles can gain and use cover saves from multiple means) the rules are consistent with the Shield of Sanguinius FAQ, I think is indicative of GW's meaning.

On the "if obscured" part - but "if" is a condition that must be satisfied; IF <truth statement> evaluates to true, you then do what it tells you. Logically it is the most basic of requirements you can have that doesnt begin "you must do X"

If you do not satisfy the "If" condition, you then follow "else" - which doesnt exist. So "if" you are NOT obscured you cannot follow the rules for "if" you are actually obscured.

I'm mainly applying strict syntax rules to English, which is always going to end in tears I guess

It can't get any more direct than when a special rules says "all friendly squads within X" benefit from a 5+ cover." There is no mention of wounds anywhere in there.

Remember, codex trumps BRB.

Jy2, Shield and Storm (now) both say "units", not "squads", which is clearer.

Also, remember that codex does not always trump rulebook. Specific trumps general. In most cases a codex rule is more specific than a rulebook rule, but not always.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:On the "if obscured" part - but "if" is a condition that must be satisfied; IF <truth statement> evaluates to true, you then do what it tells you. Logically it is the most basic of requirements you can have that doesnt begin "you must do X"

If you do not satisfy the "If" condition, you then follow "else" - which doesnt exist. So "if" you are NOT obscured you cannot follow the rules for "if" you are actually obscured.

If =/= "only if". The restrictions in there are restrictions on "the normal rules for cover" as page 62 clearly tells us. The "normal rules for cover" never say anything about wargear, special rules (like warbike clouds or Turboboosting) or psychic powers. Reading the cover rules as excluding and nullifying wargear, special rules, and psychic powers because they don't specifically mention them is a nonfunctional reading.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I'm mainly applying strict syntax rules to English, which is always going to end in tears I guess

Applying strict syntax to English or to GW rules, yeah.

nosferatu1001 wrote:On the "if obscured" part - but "if" is a condition that must be satisfied; IF <truth statement> evaluates to true, you then do what it tells you. Logically it is the most basic of requirements you can have that doesnt begin "you must do X"

If you do not satisfy the "If" condition, you then follow "else" - which doesnt exist. So "if" you are NOT obscured you cannot follow the rules for "if" you are actually obscured.

I'm mainly applying strict syntax rules to English, which is always going to end in tears I guess

Well, of course it's going to end in tears because you stake a claim that your proposed rules for syntax must be followed for "if" statements but then proceed to dismiss the importance of qualifiers and modifiers.

When the rules specify "units in cover" can do something, you do not satisfy the qualifier unless the unit is in cover.

Do you understand that your position is inconsistent?

Solkan - actually it states units in cover receive a cover save.

Not that "only" unit in cover RECEIVE cover saves.

How many more times can i say the argument is not over acquisition but use? "If obscured" is the only thing which tells you how you can use the cover save you have been given - and "if obscured" does place a requirement - you must be obscured.

Under "Taking saving throws" on pagfe 20 it explains how to take an armour save, the jist is 'Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered If the dice result is equal to or higher than the model’s Sv value, the wound is stopped.' The only difference between a armour save and a cover save is "they are not affected by the Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon".

So to take the saving throw rules, and use them for something that isn't a wound begs permission right? Something like the permission on page 62 "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".

Otherwise one would bve using a save on something that it has no effect on right?

ChrisCP wrote:Otherwise one would bve using a save on something that it has no effect on right?

Unless I am mistaken, that is exactly the point.

Chris - that was exactly my point. The only time you know how to USE a vehicle cover save (in any useful way) is by parsing the sentence "If obscured...>"

Which is a truth statement - if you are not obscured why are you continuing to read? There is no permission to read further as you have not met the condition of being "obscured".

I dont see why others dont see this as a condition you must satisfy, is all.

In part because the rules break down if you read it that way.

I think there's genuine ambiguity there; one way of reading it makes the rules work, and the other doesn't.

How do they breakdown?
As far as I can tell the cover rules for vehicles work as written.

The number of times GW have given vehicles cover saves without also making them obscured - Shield of Sanguinius, for example.

They also havent given any indication how you use Invulnerable saves on vehicles, in general. Flickerfield has no Bjorn-like text.