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.

Has it been faq'ed in any way to grant 5+ cover saves to vehicles?

It's always been that case. A vehicle is a unit within 6"... given that he's either inside the vehicle or the vehicle is within 6" of the Rune Priest.

imweasel wrote:Has it been faq'ed in any way to grant 5+ cover saves to vehicles?

Not specifically, but since the argument against Storm Caller *not* being able to work on vehicles is certainly far from solid and the Shield of Sanguinius has been ruled on to work on vehicles (and they essentially use the same wording) I think its a pretty safe bet that Storm Caller does provide vehicles a cover save (that they can use).

yakface wrote:

imweasel wrote:Has it been faq'ed in any way to grant 5+ cover saves to vehicles?

Not specifically, but since the argument against Storm Caller *not* being able to work on vehicles is certainly far from solid and the Shield of Sanguinius has been ruled on to work on vehicles (and they essentially use the same wording) I think its a pretty safe bet that Storm Caller does provide vehicles a cover save (that they can use).

In a different game system, I would whole heartedly agree.

However, gw has proven time and again that precedent (and sometimes rules) don't mean diddly. We've all seen it and experience it.

I too, think that it provides a cover save, but after the redo of the faqs recently, it seems odd that SoS has been faq'ed to do this and SC has not.

As always, it's gw's inconsistency that seems to know no bounds.

Thanks for the replies.

Well than we can go back to the facts we know:

1) A vehicle is a unit.
2) Storm caller gives units within x" a 5+ cover save.

So vehicles within x" gain a 5+ cover save.

And to other "facts" that "we know"

1) the Cover rules only provide saving throws against wounds
2) in order for a vehicle to be able to take cover saves against penetrating and glancing hits it must be obscured

So, vehicle within 6" gain a cover save that they may not actually use.

To be fair, I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate to show that this isn't exactly an open-and-shut case.

willydstyle wrote:And to other "facts" that "we know"

1) the Cover rules only provide saving throws against wounds
2) in order for a vehicle to be able to take cover saves against penetrating and glancing hits it must be obscured

So, vehicle within 6" gain a cover save that they may not actually use.

To be fair, I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate to show that this isn't exactly an open-and-shut case.

The debate for that (cover applying to vehicles- not obscured) is still being handled in another thread(unless yak and Nos came to a conclusion)

But those same facts apply to Vehicles getting Invulnerable saves; which we currently have 2 codexes that grant such saves(SW Bjorn, and DE Flickerfields)

I also fully agree with you the vehicle(or vehicles in the case of a Squadron) gain a 5+ cover save if they(or at least 1 of them) are in range; whether they can use that save or not depends your view of Cover/invulnerable saves and vehicles.

Basically if GW says saves are granted to vehicles, I say: "Why not".

In the case of Storm caller they already errata'd the rule to say "units" instead of "squads" they could have tacked the words "Non-Vehicle" in front of "units" in either errata update; but they didn't.

edit: PS I also do love a good devil's advocacy

Well, GW wrote in the errata to change the wording from "Squad" to "unit". If this was not made to include vehicles, I dont really see the point in making the errata notice.

Fayric wrote:Well, GW wrote in the errata to change the wording from "Squad" to "unit". If this was not made to include vehicles, I dont really see the point in making the errata notice.

That was exactly my point. Although, admittedly, I did not make myself clear.

Fayric wrote:Well, GW wrote in the errata to change the wording from "Squad" to "unit". If this was not made to include vehicles, I dont really see the point in making the errata notice.

The acronym 'gw' is enough to throw most common sense out the window, so that point is kind of moot.

I will say, in their defense, that I am more impressed with the current faq's than ever before.

Because the codex did not contain "Squads", but does contain "units"

Bjorn actually has wording to allow him to use his invulnerable save; Flickerfields just grant an invulnerable without telling you how it works. It is a HUGE leap to assume you can a) treat glancing and penetrating hits as "the same" and b) that you swap 1 - 1 (when compared to wounds)

It was mainly myself and Mann;I believe we agreed finally that "if obscured" IS a truth statement and therefore functions as a requirement, but reading it as such is non-functional for both SoS AND SC (as the FAQ only states they "have", not "can use", a cover save - a difference I keep making!*)

*you can be given a car by a (very good!) friend but, unless you meet the condition "if you have a license, insurance and MOT" you cannot actually USE it on the public roads.

Agreed. There is a technical argument to be made that a vehicle could be granted a cover save by some means but never be able to use it, IF your reading of "if obscured" makes it exclusive permission.

But in practice that reading is inconsistent with the existence of Flickerfields and the Shield of Sanguinius FAQ answer. So no one (well, maybe SOMEONE out there) actually plays it that way.

Storm Caller was errata'd to say "units" instead of "squads". Shield of Sanguinius says "units", and has been FAQ clarified to indeed apply to vehicles. I don't think it's in any way a stretch to see that the SoS clarification also applies to SC, since they both use the exact same word for what is affected/

Mannahnin wrote:Storm Caller was errata'd to say "units" instead of "squads". Shield of Sanguinius says "units", and has been FAQ clarified to indeed apply to vehicles. I don't think it's in any way a stretch to see that the SoS clarification also applies to SC, since they both use the exact same word for what is affected/

However, gw has never used precedent for basis in their faq's, let alone the game rules.

Just pointing that out.

I don't think that's true at all. I'd have to dig for an example, but I'm certain that they HAVE referenced existing precedents in at least a couple of rulings. That being said, they certainly haven't been consistent in the rationales for their FAQ rulings. Sometimes they seem to adhere to RAW, and sometimes they basically make a new rule.

All of that is beside the point, however, as GW's inconsistent use of precedent doesn't actually have any bearing on the reasoning I gave.

The identical word usage for what's affected in SoS and SC, combined with the FAQ clarification that SoS does indeed apply to vehicles makes obvious (to me, at least) that SC must also apply to vehicles.

Execpte surly, they would have FAQ'd both the same way, so people don't need to take an FAQ answer from one codex and apply it to a different power in another... surely they aren't expecting us to take answer for one specific thing in one codex and apply it as a blanket to the whole game... wouldn't it be sensible to address it in the BRB FAQ then instead of a book specific one........

Except they've frequently made rulings in one codex's FAQ which applied to others. The Eldar codex FAQ had some important general questions about skimmers for a long time, as one example. The SW FAQ had an important ruling about counterattack and whether it combined with abilities which trigger when a unit assaults.

It's been that way for years.

Mannahnin wrote:Except they've frequently made rulings in one codex's FAQ which applied to others. The Eldar codex FAQ had some important general questions about skimmers for a long time, as one example. The SW FAQ had an important ruling about counterattack and whether it combined with abilities which trigger when a unit assaults.

It's been that way for years.

Except on the SW faq, they flip flopped on that one. Shall we mention deff rolla?

I would say that for every example that gw followed precedent, you could probably find 2 that didn't.

Huh? Counter attack in SW is a clartification of how the rule works and can be applied to any situation in which CA arises because of this.
The Eldar currently have no 'general' FAQ or errata in theirs - if you want to chuck up the old outdated one you're referring to, so we all can see if the entries, that'd be great.

What you're doing is taking SoS from BA and applying it to SC from SW - this is waaaaaaaay different - even from both of the examples you provided.

imweasel wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Except they've frequently made rulings in one codex's FAQ which applied to others. The Eldar codex FAQ had some important general questions about skimmers for a long time, as one example. The SW FAQ had an important ruling about counterattack and whether it combined with abilities which trigger when a unit assaults.

It's been that way for years.

Except on the SW faq, they flip flopped on that one. Shall we mention deff rolla?

I would say that for every example that gw followed precedent, you could probably find 2 that didn't.

Again, it would be ONE THING if GW had ruled AGAINST Storm Caller working against vehicles while ruling the opposite way on Shield of Sanguinius...but they haven't. They've made a ruling on one and they haven't made a ruling on the other. So absolutely, in this case there is no reason not to assume the same logic applies to Storm Caller.

Because the whole argument against Storm Caller not working on vehicles is the notion that vehicles MUST be obscured in order to use a cover save, but GW has made it clear with Shield of Sanguinius that this is not the case (because Shield of Sanguinius works on vehicles and doesn't obscure them).

And to further the point, GW also put out an errata for Storm Caller changing its target from 'squad' to 'unit'. While this *could* just be a technical fix, it strongly suggests when combined with the other evidence provided that this was also intended to clarify that Storm Caller works with both vehicle and non-vehicle units.


Of course, GW could always come back with a new SW FAQ and rule against Storm Caller working on vehicles, because we all agree that sometimes they are inconsistent with their rulings. However, until that point, why would we not apply the reasoning presented above to assume that Storm Caller does indeed affect friendly vehicles? Its not like the argument against vehicles taking a save from Storm Caller is incredibly airtight...

imweasel wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Except they've frequently made rulings in one codex's FAQ which applied to others. The Eldar codex FAQ had some important general questions about skimmers for a long time, as one example. The SW FAQ had an important ruling about counterattack and whether it combined with abilities which trigger when a unit assaults.

It's been that way for years.

Except on the SW faq, they flip flopped on that one. Shall we mention deff rolla?

I would say that for every example that gw followed precedent, you could probably find 2 that didn't.

Do you know why they changed the Counterattack/FC ruling? It was because of the effect that ruling had on Straken IG. It made them brutally OP, leading to an easy GT win (taking the first golden ticket) with a Straken horde army, as well as a prominent article on Straken horde on BOLS. Shortly after those occurances, GW changed the ruling in the SW FAQ.

And I reiterate, whether or not GW makes consistent use of precedent is irrelevant.

Mannahnin wrote:And I reiterate, whether or not GW makes consistent use of precedent is irrelevant.

Umm...

Why?

You even admitted that they chose to follow precedent/rules or not at their own whim.

Mannahnin wrote:That being said, they certainly haven't been consistent in the rationales for their FAQ rulings. Sometimes they seem to adhere to RAW, and sometimes they basically make a new rule.

OR they completely ignore 'precedence' from one faq to another as well, such as astropath and autarch.

I don't know what gw means, I wish I did. I wish you did as well.

Nothing in the SW FAQ or codex conflicts with the SoS ruling; quite the opposite, actually, as they errata'd SC to closely match SoS's wording.

As far as precedent goes, whether we think GW would rule consistently or not doesn't matter. We're not playing "guess what GW would rule", we're just reading the rules and figuring out how they work.

GW hasn't made an explicit ruling on SC, so even if they might screw it up, no conflict presently exists. If they had made a conflicting ruling, yeah, we'd have to throw up our hands and recognize the inconsistency, but they haven't. They've left the question open, so it's just up to us to put two and two together. To me the conclusion seems obvious, but YMMV.

Yak - to be technical you get given a cover save by SoS, but nothing states you can use it. Which was my argument - there is a difference between posession and use.

I guess I'm just hoping for them to realise that they have gaping holes in the rules that they can fill. Theyve done quite well with fantasy 8th ed (just a weird special rule stacking problem they quickly errata'd away, as yo uused to be able to get frenzied twice and get +2A) so this approach may work in 40k. Certainly the new 40k FAQ style is consistent with fantasy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yak - to be technical you get given a cover save by SoS, but nothing states you can use it. Which was my argument - there is a difference between posession and use.

I guess I'm just hoping for them to realise that they have gaping holes in the rules that they can fill.

I don't know that I'd call this a "gaping" hole, insofar as the vast majority of people I've encountered haven't had a problem with the inconsistency it presents... although, to be fair, there are some areas (squadrons interacting with rams/ramming, etc..) that definitely need some clarification.

Theyve done quite well with fantasy 8th ed (just a weird special rule stacking problem they quickly errata'd away, as yo uused to be able to get frenzied twice and get +2A) so this approach may work in 40k. Certainly the new 40k FAQ style is consistent with fantasy.

I'll agree wholeheartedly with this, though- the FAQs have gotten much better, and GW seems more willing to address 'Old Codex Syndrome' via FAQ than they have previously.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yak - to be technical you get given a cover save by SoS, but nothing states you can use it. Which was my argument - there is a difference between posession and use.

I guess I'm just hoping for them to realise that they have gaping holes in the rules that they can fill. Theyve done quite well with fantasy 8th ed (just a weird special rule stacking problem they quickly errata'd away, as yo uused to be able to get frenzied twice and get +2A) so this approach may work in 40k. Certainly the new 40k FAQ style is consistent with fantasy.

I totally understand what you're saying, but I think that's a distinction that's only relevant in the most diligent parsing of the rules. The idea that a game designer could or would intentionally create a rule (or a FAQ ruling in this case) that was intentionally pointless is ludicrous.

It should hopefully be abundantly clear that from GW's point of view there is no gap to fill. There is no restriction against vehicles using a cover save they gain from some other means other than obscurement...you just use the rules for taking obscured cover saves.

The question of whether or not vehicles can utilize non-obscured cover a save they have, or whether they not they benefit from Shield of Sanguinius are the same question...maybe not from the most critical, nuanced standpoint, but you have to remember that most people don't spend as much time as we do parsing these rules out. So to the general gamer the question of: 'does a vehicle get to utilize a cover save it gains from Shield of Sanguinius despite the fact that it isn't obscured?' Isn't as relevant as the more basic: 'do vehicles gain a cover save from Shield of Sanguinius?'

I said a "gaping hole" as it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the English language, and the difference between possession and use. It's just a bugbear of mine (but I'm an auditor, therefore weird anyway!)

I agree with you thet GW doesnt seem to think there's a problem, however it isnt asking too much for an errata to the BRB to clear this up. Certainly this should happen for Invulnerable saves on vehicles, as you have no functional permission, ANYWHERE in the BRB, to use them - as you have no way of knowing how they work, precisely. You can assume that you discount 1 pen/glance hit as if it were 1 wound, but that is only inferring it from the Cover Saves rules for vehicles. THis is the real gaping hole - a whole class of saves for vehicles with no general rules. Only Bjorn has rules that actually work, and they only work for him....

Also, they could have changed the word from "squads" to "units" because "squads" doesn't have any concrete definition in 40k, while "units" does.