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.

Was bored so I was reading the BA FAQ and stumbled onto this but was rather confused.

"Q: Do vehicles gain a cover save from Shield of
Sanguinius?
A: Yes."

I always thought that vehicles could not benefit from cover save because saves are only taken against wounds. I thought only the ork KFF gave vehicles cover since it says it obscures them. So does the vehicle get 5+ cover, 4+ cover, or no cover from shield of sanguinius (or similar spells like SW storm caller).

RAW, vehicles can't benefit. The rule simply does not have the necessary language, as you pointed out.

And, of course, the faq writer apparently had no grasp of the underlying rules issue so even if you follow the FAQ answer strictly vehicles gain no benefit. They gain a useless save, just like they always have.

But, presumably, it was the faq writers intent that they benefit from a usable obscurement save at the standard Shield value. If you play with the faq, that is.

Isn't it fun how they'll go out of their way to errata “Replace all wargear with Terminator armour with Chalice of Blood and power sword” to “Replace all wargear with Terminator armour with Blood Chalice and power sword” but won't errata in something as simple as 'vehicles within 6" are obscured with a 5+ save' when that functionality is so completely gamechanging?

Yes, if you get strictly RaW the FAQ grants them a cover save that they can't use. Based on the fact that they put it in the FAQ any TO in their right mind should rule that it grants cover the vehicle can use without the exact words "obscured".

It seemed simple enough until this FAQ. I think i will keep playing that vehicles do not benefit since from a RAW point of view vehicles dont take saves. Also, from a RAI point of if they had intended for vehicles to benefit then the rules would have been the same as the KFF rules which are nice and clear about vehicles. If any BA player try to use this FAQ to their advantage i will simple remind them that their vehicles are free to take 5+ cover against any wounds I deal but not for pens or glances

Well, that 5+ cover save is better than a 6+ from being obscured by razor-wire, so it's not a total loss