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.

I have the digital copy so page reference from me is moot heh. To be clear jink, smoke, etc..specifically reference vehicles so that is a silly comparison. I don't read anything that specifically counters the vehicle cover/obscured rules and again have yet to see anyone play it the way you are stating. If a data sheet specifically references a vehicle as getting cover for being in then no argument from me but if it is standard battlefield terrain then the rule book clearly states 25% obscured gets the cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have the digital copy so page reference from me is moot heh. To be clear jink, smoke, etc..specifically reference vehicles so that is a silly comparison. I don't read anything that specifically counters the vehicle cover/obscured rules and again have yet to see anyone play it the way you are stating. If a data sheet specifically references a vehicle as getting cover for being in then no argument from me but if it is standard battlefield terrain then the rule book clearly states 25% obscured gets the cover.

So can you actually argue against any of the points raised? If you have the digital rulebook that is fine quote the actual rule. There is no rule that prevents vehicles from receiving a cover save. Jink certainly does not directly reference vehicles nor does Shrouding. So again do you have anything to actually add to the discussion or any valid points to raise?

 FlingitNow wrote:
You have a vehicle rule that states they must be 25% obscured to get a cover save?

I had a similar discussion before... these are the relevant parts:

• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer
for the vehicle to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

Which means Ruins don't give cover to vehicles unless they're at least 25% covered by them. Jinking, Stealth and Shrouded work as normal with vehicles, though,

Sorry VectorStrike but are you trolling or did you not bother reading the thread? Everything you've stated has already been covered and your conclusion proven false. So either you're trolling by reiterating what you know to be an invalid argument or you didn't read the thread. So which is it?

The vehicle rule states you aren't obscured unless 25% covered. Ruins rules give you a cover save regardless of obscured status just like the datasheets do. Unless you're claiming that without obscured status vehicles can't have cover saves in which case jink doesn't work.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry VectorStrike but are you trolling or did you not bother reading the thread? Everything you've stated has already been covered and your conclusion proven false. So either you're trolling by reiterating what you know to be an invalid argument or you didn't read the thread. So which is it?

The vehicle rule states you aren't obscured unless 25% covered. Ruins rules give you a cover save regardless of obscured status just like the datasheets do. Unless you're claiming that without obscured status vehicles can't have cover saves in which case jink doesn't work.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. This has nothing to do with Jink, which has its own rules.

I asked this previously about having vehicles in battlements, specifically Skimmers. Battlements too have a line about giving 4+ cover no mater how obscured a unit is when on them, but battlements are a kind of terrain - so, vehicles need to be 25% obscured by them to get the cover save.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. 

I'm going to want a quote to back that up.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. 

I'm going to want a quote to back that up.

RUINS
Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

DIFFICULT TERRAIN
Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move through it. It includes areas of rubble, woods, ruins (...)

Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets
• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted[/color] (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

“At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.
Vehicles cannot Go to Ground, voluntarily ​
or otherwise.
If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or is otherwise hit by an enemy shooting attack that inflicts damage upon it (such as being hit by a weapon with the Graviton special rule, ​
it must take a cover save against it, exactly[…]”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” v1.0. Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.

Not sure how you can argue against that. Your saying we are not proving our point but this is pretty darn clear to me. Maybe I don't understand your argument but it seems you are saying the BRB does not state you don't get a cover. Yeah....it does right there by stating the 25% rule takes precedence. If you had a specific rule for a terrain piece that states vehicles get cover even if not 25% obscured then I would not argue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
“is made on the Vehicle Damage table. If a special rule or a piece of wargear makes a vehicle obscured even if in the open, this is a 5+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the codex or Army List Entry”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” v1.0. Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/warhammer-40-000-interactive/id879163850?mt=13

Sorry it cut the last part of the rule off.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. 

I'm going to want a quote to back that up.

RUINS
Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

DIFFICULT TERRAIN
Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move through it. It includes areas of rubble, woods, ruins (...)

Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets
• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted[/color] (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

So I take it this means you can't provide a relevant quote to back up your assertation?

As already explained multiple times in this thread Ruins provides a cover save when not obscured and that vehicle rule talks about being obscured and how a vehicle can only be obscured when 25% covered.

So we have 1 rule saying you aren't obscured. Then another saying you get a cover save regardless of whether you are obscured.

Fling, so I understand your position - since (specified) terrain grants cover simply for being in it, regardless of whether or not the model is obscured, the vehicle rule about having to be obscured to be obscured is pointless? Redundant? Waste of ink?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the RAI is in this case?

You all need to understand the difference between being obscured and taking a cover save. It's relevant to flings argument.

If the rule stated "vehicles do not gain cover saves granted by terrain unless they are 25% obscured" then it wouldn't be a problem, but it doesn't. It mentions one way of gaining a cover save which is irrelevant to the terrain granted saves.

Again, not HIWPI or, imo, RAI




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry. Missed happyjews comment. He gets it

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling, so I understand your position - since (specified) terrain grants cover simply for being in it, regardless of whether or not the model is obscured, the vehicle rule about having to be obscured to be obscured is pointless? Redundant? Waste of ink?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the RAI is in this case?

RaI for me is that it is most likely a legacy cope and paste fail much like those that litter the Psychic phase. The reason I do not think it is intended to work the way people on here think it works is because it is a clumsy reference to area terrain and they stripped of the area terrain rules. Indeed they stripped nearly all the terrain rules except the datasheets which are entirely unequivocal in working with vehicles (even redundantly reinforcing that obscured doesn't matter). So I see no reason to treat this 1 line on ruins differently to all the datasheets.

 jokerkd wrote:
You all need to understand the difference between being obscured and taking a cover save. It's relevant to flings argument.

No, I tried to establish this early on in the thread but he elected not to engage and explain himself, and went down the "page n graph or I win" route instead...

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
You all need to understand the difference between being obscured and taking a cover save. It's relevant to flings argument.

No, I tried to establish this early on in the thread but he elected not to engage and explain himself, and went down the "page n graph or I win" route instead...

You tried to establish it then made a massive jump that being obscured is the only way to get a cover save which Jink proves wrong. So do you have an actual argument or point?

Nope. I made no comment about nor reply to anything about Jink. I was sticking to the context the rules are in, i.e. terrain such as woods or ruins.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. 

I'm going to want a quote to back that up.

RUINS
Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

DIFFICULT TERRAIN
Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move through it. It includes areas of rubble, woods, ruins (...)

Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets
• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted[/color] (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

So I take it this means you can't provide a relevant quote to back up your assertation?

As already explained multiple times in this thread Ruins provides a cover save when not obscured and that vehicle rule talks about being obscured and how a vehicle can only be obscured when 25% covered.

So we have 1 rule saying you aren't obscured. Then another saying you get a cover save regardless of whether you are obscured.

The vehicle rules are more specific and apply.

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry due to their sheer size and bulk......

Then you have the exceptions to the rule, which are posted as to how a vehicle can get a cover save.

 FlingitNow wrote:
That has nothing to do with how area terrain works now though. Nothing is obscured by being in terrain so that is just a reminder if how normal cover works. Then the datasheets give cover regardless of obscures status so work just as much for vehicles as anything else.

This was his 3rd post in the thread. Admittedly, i didn't quite understand what he meant by it at first, but after reading the relevant sections, you'll see how not being obscured is only relevant to saves granted by being obscured.

The terrain rules do not say you are obscured just by being in/on them. They say you are granted a save that is specifically not dependant on whether you are obscured

Fragile wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Ruins are a kind of terrain, and vehicles rules say bing in a terrain isn't suffice to give them cover, unless 25% obscured. 

I'm going to want a quote to back that up.

RUINS
Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

DIFFICULT TERRAIN
Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move through it. It includes areas of rubble, woods, ruins (...)

Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets
• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted[/color] (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.
• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

So I take it this means you can't provide a relevant quote to back up your assertation?

As already explained multiple times in this thread Ruins provides a cover save when not obscured and that vehicle rule talks about being obscured and how a vehicle can only be obscured when 25% covered.

So we have 1 rule saying you aren't obscured. Then another saying you get a cover save regardless of whether you are obscured.

The vehicle rules are more specific and apply.

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry due to their sheer size and bulk......

Then you have the exceptions to the rule, which are posted as to how a vehicle can get a cover save.

So vehicles don't get cover the way normal models do due to size. It then explains what that means. It means they are not obscured (and thus get no obscured dependent cover) unless they are 25% covered by terrain. However Jink or ruins or the terrain datasheets for example don't care about obscured they grant cover not dependent on obscured status. As the ruins quote proves. So why would a vehicle not get a cover save for being in ruins? I can see that it wouldn't be obscured the rules are clear on that. Now do you have anything that stops it having a cover save?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
From the first line under 'Cover Saves':

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover... Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save."

So "obscured" = "in cover" = "entitled to a cover save".

So then what the second point under 'Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets' basically says is, "Vehicles are not in cover and entitled to a cover save simply for being in terrain such as woods or ruins."

That has everything to do with terrain that grants a cover save to models for simply being in it, i.e. terrain such as woods and ruins.

Unless you disagree with the terms meanings relative to each other as I've given them (in which case please explain) I'm having trouble understanding the rules support for your position, so could you please explain?

Obscured means in cover and that entitles you to a cover save. It is not however the only way to get a cover save as Ruins and Jink prove. So you've made your leap of all human are men. All men are humans and all men have male genitalia. Thus by your logic all humans have male genitalia. Lets look at that sentence again:

So all obscured vehicles are entitled to a cover save but not all vehicles entitled to a cover save are obscured as ruins and jink prove. So you sentence shouldn't read:

Vehicles are not in cover and entitled to a cover save simply for being in terrain such as woods or ruins."

Vehicles are not in cover and entitled to a cover save granted by being Obscured simply for being in terrain such as woods or ruins."

I wish you all the sticky joy of your RAW victory over my obvious and entirely declared-in-advance common sense/RAI argument.

You didn't state you were arguing RaI in advance. You believe the intent is that ruins work entirely differently to all the datasheets? Is that your belief? Now we have agreed on RaW we can discuss RaI. Though I see it unlikely that either of us can convince the other on what we think the author intended.

 FlingitNow wrote:
You didn't state you were arguing RaI in advance. You believe the intent is that ruins work entirely differently to all the datasheets? Is that your belief? Now we have agreed on RaW we can discuss RaI. Though I see it unlikely that either of us can convince the other on what we think the author intended.

So you think the intention is to have a large tank sitting inside of a ruined building and firing from inside of it? I don't think so.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So vehicles don't get cover the way normal models do due to size. It then explains what that means. It means they are not obscured (and thus get no obscured dependent cover) unless they are 25% covered by terrain. However Jink or ruins or the terrain datasheets for example don't care about obscured they grant cover not dependent on obscured status. As the ruins quote proves. So why would a vehicle not get a cover save for being in ruins? I can see that it wouldn't be obscured the rules are clear on that. Now do you have anything that stops it having a cover save?

Yes this stops it from getting a cover save:

" Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You didn't state you were arguing RaI in advance. You believe the intent is that ruins work entirely differently to all the datasheets? Is that your belief? Now we have agreed on RaW we can discuss RaI. Though I see it unlikely that either of us can convince the other on what we think the author intended.

So you think the intention is to have a large tank sitting inside of a ruined building and firing from inside of it? I don't think so.

A Wraithknight can. Why not the much smaller tank or Imperial Knight?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So vehicles don't get cover the way normal models do due to size. It then explains what that means. It means they are not obscured (and thus get no obscured dependent cover) unless they are 25% covered by terrain. However Jink or ruins or the terrain datasheets for example don't care about obscured they grant cover not dependent on obscured status. As the ruins quote proves. So why would a vehicle not get a cover save for being in ruins? I can see that it wouldn't be obscured the rules are clear on that. Now do you have anything that stops it having a cover save?

Yes this stops it from getting a cover save:

" Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

Which part of that? I don't see cover saves mentioned at all in your quote. Are you saying Jink doesn't work for vehicles?

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You didn't state you were arguing RaI in advance. You believe the intent is that ruins work entirely differently to all the datasheets? Is that your belief? Now we have agreed on RaW we can discuss RaI. Though I see it unlikely that either of us can convince the other on what we think the author intended.

So you think the intention is to have a large tank sitting inside of a ruined building and firing from inside of it? I don't think so.

A Wraithknight can. Why not the much smaller tank or Imperial Knight?

Because the rules are nonsensical.

Logically, you'd think the ruins would work on a tank if they work on a Garg Creature, but they don't. It's the unit type rules that make the difference, even though it's head scratching why a Garg Creature can toe-in-ruin and get the save, but a vehicle can't.

Melevolence wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You didn't state you were arguing RaI in advance. You believe the intent is that ruins work entirely differently to all the datasheets? Is that your belief? Now we have agreed on RaW we can discuss RaI. Though I see it unlikely that either of us can convince the other on what we think the author intended.

So you think the intention is to have a large tank sitting inside of a ruined building and firing from inside of it? I don't think so.

A Wraithknight can. Why not the much smaller tank or Imperial Knight?

Because the rules are nonsensical.

Logically, you'd think the ruins would work on a tank if they work on a Garg Creature, but they don't. It's the unit type rules that make the difference, even though it's head scratching why a Garg Creature can toe-in-ruin and get the save, but a vehicle can't.

Actually as proven the rules work identically for Garg Creatures as for Vehicles. Your houserules may differ but Raaw it is the same.

what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

notredameguy10 wrote:
what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

So all cover saves are depend on being obscured? Is that what you're saying? Because your quote talks about obscured and makes no mentionsof cover saves.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

So all cover saves are depend on being obscured? Is that what you're saying? Because your quote talks about obscured and makes no mentionsof cover saves.

Because the ONLY cover saves vehicles CAN get are those from being obscured lol

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

So all cover saves are depend on being obscured? Is that what you're saying? Because your quote talks about obscured and makes no mentionsof cover saves.

Because the ONLY cover saves vehicles CAN get are those from being obscured lol

Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
what don't you understand about the quote:

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

i.e. Being in ruins do not give vehicles cover. They still need to be 25% obscured.

So all cover saves are depend on being obscured? Is that what you're saying? Because your quote talks about obscured and makes no mentionsof cover saves.

Because the ONLY cover saves vehicles CAN get are those from being obscured lol

Cool well 1 that means jink doesn't work and 2 I'm going to want a quote for that.

*Sigh* please use some common sense.

It specifically says "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

If vehicles got cover from being in area terrain such as woods or ruins, then why would they even mention the fact that they need 25% obscured?

the 25% rule overrides any rules for area terrain.