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.

That is NOT my logic at all - as non-vehicle models can still *use* any cover save against wounds, as that is what a cover save is defined as working to prevent. There is not the same restriction, as vehicles have to *change* how a cover save operates in order to work - they have to change it from working against wounds to working against hits. The *only allowance* for you to do this is when you have the status "obscured". If you believe otherwise please provide an ability to use a cover save that is NOT against wounds, and that does not follow from "IF THE VEHICLE IS OBSCURED" that I quoted above.

In essence: being obscured allows non-vehicle models to be in cover, and this gives them a cover save. It is not a requirement to *use* the cover save as the cover save allows saves against wounds, and does not require "obscured" to trigger this allowance.

Vehicle models that have been provided a cover save must *also* be obscured, as this is the only method by which a cover save can be changed from working against wounds to working against glancing / penetrating hits.

See the last KFF thread for a better break down of this - the last few pages where I finally managed to explain my thoughts to Insaniak!

And the only way for an infantry model to claim cover is to have the status "obscured" too...I don't see where you are going with this. The RB does say that when 'obscured' the vehicle may take a cover save as a model would against a wound.

So...if infantry need to be 'obscured' to receive a cover save, and a vehicle needs to be 'obscured' to receive a cover save...I really don't see a problem here. the 'obscured' status is just a state that grants a cover save which is allowed by both vehicles and 'models with wounds' as described by the RB.

And other stuff grants cover saves...

EDIT: you will also find after reading all the rules covering cover saves...that no where does it say anything about 'wounds'. But I guess you can play how you want.

Except for the fact you are forgetting we are not talking about any save, but invul saves. Invul saves are taken vs wounds.

In RaW yes you are correct in the rules you are wrong. ANY save a vehicle takes be it cover, Invulnerable or armour save it takes them against glancing and penetrating hits. That is the rules as proven by Bjorn existing.

Please otherwise tell me why GW intentionally gave Bjorn a save he could not use? Why would they do this?

FlingitNow wrote:

Why make it an invul save? How freaking stupid.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand vehicles take saves against penetrating and glancing hits? How freaking stupid...

FlingitNow, this is a clear violation of Rule #1. Please read the Dakka Posting Rules and adhere to them. Failure to follow the rules will result in disciplinary action.

Thank you.

FlingitNow, this is a clear violation of Rule #1. Please read the Dakka Posting Rules and adhere to them. Failure to follow the rules will result in disciplinary action.

To clarify it was not my intention to call him "freaking stupid" I was just using his words to explain GWs actions and hence why I did not think I was breaking rule 1.

So I'd like to extent unreserved apologies to imweasel if he felt I was calling him directly stupid or offended him personally in any way

padixon wrote:And the only way for an infantry model to claim cover is to have the status "obscured" too...I don't see where you are going with this. The RB does say that when 'obscured' the vehicle may take a cover save as a model would against a wound.

Erm, no. I suggest you read the sections again. "When Are models in cover?" just states how to determine when models are "in cover", i.e. from terrain or other models. It does not dictate that the ONLY way to take a cover save is when you are obscured.

padixon wrote:So...if infantry need to be 'obscured' to receive a cover save,

That is incorrect, as is shown above. Being obscured by terrain is ONE way to receive a cover save, it does not define it as the ONLY way.

padixon wrote: and a vehicle needs to be 'obscured' to receive a cover save...I really don't see a problem here. the 'obscured' status is just a state that grants a cover save which is allowed by both vehicles and 'models with wounds' as described by the RB.

And again, you are (delberately?) ignoring what I have posted: being obscured is NOT how you "receive" a cover save, being obscured as a vehicle is how you *change how a cover save works from wounds to hits* which is what is needed to *use* a cover save. You may have a cover save, e..g from being within 6" of a KFF, but unless you are ALSO obscured that cover save may only be taken against wounds.

There is a massive difference between *having* something and being able to *use* it, for example I may have a gun but cannot use it without the correct permit. Obscured is the permit to use. I asked you for a rule which allows vehicles to [b]use[b] cover saves against penetrating / glancing hits that is not the rule on page 62. You have not provided that.

padixon wrote:EDIT: you will also find after reading all the rules covering cover saves...that no where does it say anything about 'wounds'. But I guess you can play how you want.

*sigh* And as I mentioned, repeatedly, if you read the entire "Make Saving Throws" section it ONLY deals with wounds - it's called context. You are told you can make saving throws against wounds, and they then specify the three different types of saves. Context tells you that they only mean saves against wounds.

You can play however you want, just letting you know its a houserule if you play that vehicles can use cover saves against hits when not obscured.

You can play however you want, just letting you know its a houserule if you play that vehicles can use cover saves against hits when not obscured.

Whilst the rest of your post is spot on this part is wrong. In fact playing that a vehicle needs to be obscured to use a save against penetrating hits is a house rule derived from RaW.

Whilst RaW backs you up and is totally correct RaW is not the rules and in this case the rules are clear as illustrated by the existance of Bjorn.

I am continually baffled at the assertion that the rules as written are not rules.

Just saying.

I am continually baffled at the assertion that the rules as written are not rules.

Why are you baffled by this? Why would you think they are the same? The FAQs and Codexes that have come uout and just the way the rules are written highlight that GWs rules writing is far from perfect. Do you really beleive that GW writes all the rules 100% perfectly and the exact words match up totally with their intentions? If so why did they give Bjorn the invulnerable save he can't use?

FlingitNow wrote:
In RaW yes you are correct in the rules you are wrong.

Oh no, he's at it again. That is not how the rules, RAW, or YMDC work Fling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And again, you are (delberately?) ignoring what I have posted: being obscured is NOT how you "receive" a cover save, being obscured as a vehicle is how you *change how a cover save works from wounds to hits* which is what is needed to *use* a cover save. You may have a cover save, e..g from being within 6" of a KFF, but unless you are ALSO obscured that cover save may only be taken against wounds.

The SW Errata specifies that units only receive the benefits of a 5+ cover save. Thus the actual mechanics, and anything at all that precedes the benefits, is irrelevant.

The benefits of a pension plan follow from working for 20 years, but I do not necessarily have to work for 20 years if some special status grants me the benefits of a pension plan.

There is a massive difference between *having* something and being able to *use* it, for example I may have a gun but cannot use it without the correct permit. Obscured is the permit to use. I asked you for a rule which allows vehicles to [b]use[b] cover saves against penetrating / glancing hits that is not the rule on page 62. You have not provided that.

The SW Errata, as I said, specifies that only the benefits of cover saves apply. This is the special permit.

*sigh* And as I mentioned, repeatedly, if you read the entire "Make Saving Throws" section it ONLY deals with wounds - it's called context. You are told you can make saving throws against wounds, and they then specify the three different types of saves. Context tells you that they only mean saves against wounds.

Actually the 'making saving throws' section only references wounds with respect to complex units and allocation. Having wounds is not necessary for making a saving throw, except as specified for armor and invulnerable saves.

You can play however you want, just letting you know its a houserule if you play that vehicles can use cover saves against hits when not obscured.

Your interpretation is actually the House Rule; you are ignoring the SW Errata and therefore RAW.

That is not how the rules, RAW, or YMDC work Fling.

You claim that RaW = The rules right?

Ok then by RaW BEFORE the SW FAQ came out if someone counter attacked with furious charge did they get the bonus? No they didn't. However the rule was clarified in the SW FAQ that they do in fact get the bonus. Hence RaW Changed, but as this was not listed as a rules change or Errata the rules have not changed. Therefore how can the rules and RaW possibly be the same thing?

RaI is the rules by definition the game was designed and is controlled by GW they choose what the rules are so their choices are what are the rules. What is written down is their attempt at communicating that to use, frequently that attempt is unclear or downright misleading or infact completely wrong (as in the example given above).

Hence I have proven categorically that Raw is not the rules and that RaI is the rules. Proving RaI is obvious often more difficult than proving RaW which is why RaW remains a good consistent tool for interpreting the rules. However when RaI is so clear RaW can be ignored...

sourclams wrote:
The SW Errata, as I said, specifies that only the benefits of cover saves apply. This is the special permit.

Sorry, it isn't. The benefits of a 5+ cover save are to save against Wounds, unless you are a vehicle and are obscured. Please show where this states that *vehicles* can use the save against *hits*

Oh wait, it doesn't. They GAIN a 5+ cover save *against wounds* as the rule *does not specify otherwise*. You have not shown permission to use the save against HITS, which is a special form of cover save rules granted by bening obscured - so as they are not obscured they do not receive the benefit of using it against hits. They recieve one benefit, just not one that is much use.

Flingitnow - no, the rules are the rules as written down in the book. Anything else, i.e. trying to derive "intent", is by definition NOT the rules. In addition given that GW state anything in the FAQ that is not an errata is a Studio Houserule, claiming it has altered the RaW is incorrect. You can only argue it has changed RaI, but the Rules AND the RaW have not been changed - only those who follow Studio Hosue Rules, as distinct from the actual Rules, would do that.

Cover Saves do not specify wounds. Repetition ad nauseum.

FlingitNow wrote:
You claim that RaW = The rules right? . . .
Hence I have proven categorically that Raw is not the rules and that RaI is the rules.

Why do I think the rules as written are rules?
The wording, it is literally true.

Do I think that is the end of the issue? Usually.

Do I think the writers intended to write the words they wrote? Yes.

Do I think they write perfect rules? No.

Do I think they write rules? Yes.

Does stating that rules have errata and errors mean that they are not rules? No.

Does stating that one knows the intent was to write rules other than what was written change the rules? No.

Rules as Written are rules, or the phrase is being used incorrectly. If one claims that there are other rules, this could be correct. If one is claiming that the written rules are not rules, that is incorrect.

sourclams wrote:Cover Saves do not specify wounds. Repetition ad nauseum.

The entire section on taking saves only talks about wounds. You ignore this ad nauseum.

If the cover saves section could be used to take saves against hits, why do you think page 62 telling you you must be obscured to take saves against hits and not wounds exists? To provide you with something else to ignore?

FlingitNow wrote:Please otherwise tell me why GW intentionally gave Bjorn a save he could not use? Why would they do this?

You mean like all the other rules that gw has borked over the decades?

RAW he can't use the save.

As far as gw's intentions, I haven't the foggiest idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:So I'd like to extent unreserved apologies to imweasel if he felt I was calling him directly stupid or offended him personally in any way

Even with a very terrible day I'm having, I did not take it personally. No apology is necessary.

Takes a lot more than this to offend me.

First of all, this needn't be a revival of the RAW vs. RAI debate. However, just remember that 40k makes no use of "reserve" words and often uses several different words to reference the same idea (especially in old codices) so unfortunately, if you say you only play by RAW you are just simply wrong because 40k breaks down in its RAW form, 'nuff said. On this particular topic, the arguments seems to be (at least one of them), that no connection can be made between wounds and glancing and penetrating hits. However, remember when resolving Walker CC, every roll made on the vehicle penetration chart counts as a "wound" for interpreting who won the CC. While this isn't perfect evidence for saying that you can treat a roll on the penetration table as a "wound" it certainly opens up the possibility. Furthermore, many of you who are diehard RAW fans really need to learn about logic before you take that stance. Because as the BRB says:

At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. 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 claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured (or ‘hull down’).

All this is referring to is one of the ways in which a vehicle may take a cover save, it in no place says this is the only way, and to assume so is logical fallacy. Furthermore, since all codices overwrite the BRB if the special rules grant a vehicle a cover or invulnerable save then you can take the save, because that's obviously the intention, and 40k wasn't written in a way that lends itself to RAW interpretations.

Adamah - yet you go on to commit logical fallacies themselves, i.e . the fallacy of perfection (they would not have given a rule unless they meant it to do X) and the Strawman fallacy - the quote you provided was a) not one that has been used to support our arguments, and b) that is not the argument we were making.

Page 62 clearly tells you that cover saves may only be taken by wounds UNLESS you are obscured, in which case cover saves may be taken against hits AS IF they were wounds.

Again, I am not stating you may not be granted a cover save from other sources than being obscured. Not at all. However there is no *permission* to use that save against HITS unless you are obscured.

Please, reread the part of Page 62 I quoted, and understand what it is telling you.

Yeah I mostly agree with nosferatu.

However I often try to use a combination of "RAI" and RAW, as some strict RAW rules are just random. Take bjorns invul save for example, it might not do anything by RAW, but one can GUESS that they didn't intend it to be useless. Its also "supported" by it saying its used against penetrating and glancing hits. Hence I would play it as they'd use it as a obscured 5+ cover save.

But think about the KFF, it specifically state that it grants vehicles a obscured cover save. Some other wargear don't. So I have a hard time being convinced that by "RAI" it should be able to get a cover save. I don't know what they intended when they wrote the rule, and I don't see anything that would specifically hint that they meant vehicles get it. I'd be more inclined to think RAI supports vehicles not getting the cover save, considering some wargear mentions obscuring vehicles.

Superior because if the rule said "obscured" the vehicle gets a 4+ save and the power seems to track the old SW power that gave a 5+.

Besides the question is how do you play this. Apparently some people can say that a vehicle is granted a cover save but can't use it with a straight face in a game. I would regard that as exceptionally poor sportsmanship if I saw that short of a TO ruling to that effect. In a friendly game, I would expect that SW player to raise an eyebrow before the other player was laughed out the door.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sourclams wrote:Cover Saves do not specify wounds. Repetition ad nauseum.

The entire section on taking saves only talks about wounds. You ignore this ad nauseum.

No. You ignore that the Errata only specifies the benefits of a cover save, and that cover saves do not specify wounds. You are glossing this very significant distinction over to read something like 'vehicles are in cover'. If all Stormcaller did was to give a model in-cover status, then vehicles would not get the save, as your argument points out.

However, Stormcaller specifically states that its effect skip right over all the mechanics of cover to go straight to the benefits. The prerequisites are assumed to either be fulfilled, or ignored for the purposes of this rule. Hence, vehicles receive the benefit of a 5+ cover save, and cover saves themselves do not specify wounds.

This is the literal RAW.

sourclams wrote:
However, Stormcaller specifically states that its effect skip right over all the mechanics of cover to go straight to the benefits. The prerequisites are assumed to either be fulfilled, or ignored for the purposes of this rule. Hence, vehicles receive the benefit of a 5+ cover save, and cover saves themselves do not specify wounds.

This is the literal RAW.

But I don't think it is. Stormcaller says all units within range receive a 5+ cover save, Yes?

For the purpose of the rest of this post I will assume that it does.

Is a vehicle a unit? Yes, fine it can potentially receive a cover save. Now look at P62 Vehicles and Cover.

First paragraph.

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry...blah...The difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following exceptions to the normal rules

So vehicles benefit from the effects of being within the effect of SC, but cover works in a different manner so what is that manner?

At least 50% of the facing of the model being targetted needs to be hidden by intervening terrain...blah

But none of the model is actually hidden, so we need to look at the 2nd last paragraph

If a special rule or piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise...

So the vehicle is in cover, but in order to benefit from it it has to be 50% obscured. But it isn't, it is a cover save that is supplied from a special rule. But the section detailing the interaction of special rules requires the ability of obscurement to be confered on the tank, which Stormcaller does not.

Cheers

Andrew

PS It just occurred to me that this is the flipside arguement to KFF and whether ork vehicles receive a 5 or 4+ save.

AndrewC wrote:So the vehicle is in cover, but in order to benefit from it it has to be 50% obscured. But it isn't, it is a cover save that is supplied from a special rule. But the section detailing the interaction of special rules requires the ability of obscurement to be confered on the tank, which Stormcaller does not.

Cheers

Andrew

PS It just occurred to me that this is the flipside arguement to KFF and whether ork vehicles receive a 5 or 4+ save.

Except for the fact that the specific wording in the space wolf faq simply states that all units get a 5+ cover save.

Nowhere does it say that they have to be obscured. They just get a 5+ cover save. Period. It's unconditional.

Andrew, what you posted is the mechanics by which vehicles receive the benefit of cover, via obscurement. This is ignored because Stormcaller specifies the "benefits of a 5+ cover save". For this reason we can skip past all of the mechanics, which is what you just listed, and go straight to the end result.

The end result of a cover save is specified under the 'Cover Save' heading, and as I keep saying, a 'Cover Save' does not specify wounds. This is why obscurement, the mechanics that take place before a vehicle is eligible for cover, is ignored for the purposes of Stormcaller.

Ignore the prerequisites, ignore the conditional qualifiers, ignore any detrimental effects, and go straight to the benefits. Because Stormcaller says so.

This is *not* the flipside of the KFF argument because the KFF states that vehicles are obscured. Thus, obscured rules are relevent and apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So the vehicle is in cover, but in order to benefit from it it has to be 50% obscured.

NO. The vehicle is not in cover. This is the part that people seem to be glossing over. Nothing about Stormcaller says that you are in cover, it simply states that you get the benefits of cover. Infantry does not have to roll for difficult terrain while under stormcaller's effects, and vehicles do not have to be obscured. All that applies is the benefits of a 5+ cover save. It's like having cake and eating it.

On the RaW of this issue I think sourclams is missing the point.

By RaW yes you get the save, but you can only use it against wounds. This is not due to some restriction.

You see there is no game mechanic for determining when a Vehicle would take the save.

Do they take it against all hits (before armour penetration rolls are made)? If so point to the section in the rules that allows this,

Do they take the save against penetrating and glancing hits? If so point to the rule that allows this.

Do they take the saves against individual damage table results? If so...

You'll find there is nothing in the rulebook that satisfies any of the above only the mechanic that allows you to take the save against wounds, hence the argument...

Why do I think the rules as written are rules?
The wording, it is literally true.

You seem to misunderstand the purpose and function of language. The rules are the rules created by GW they wrote them down to communicate them to us (which is the point of language, it communicates ideas it does not form them as you seem to believe) that communication is not perfect.

The rules were designed by games workshop and to say just because they wrote something poorly that overides the rules is bizarre to say the least. It is like trying to claim the written text has intelectual ownership o fthe rules rather than the games developers.

Do I think the writers intended to write the words they wrote? Yes.

Do I think they write perfect rules? No.

Do I think they write rules? Yes.

No they design rules and then try to communicate those through writing. The text is not the rules the ideas of the designers are the rules.

Does stating that one knows the intent was to write rules other than what was written change the rules? No.

You are right it doesn't change the rules the rules are still the intent, it can change the interpretation of the rules particularly if you were using RaW before.

Rules as Written are rules, or the phrase is being used incorrectly. If one claims that there are other rules, this could be correct. If one is claiming that the written rules are not rules, that is incorrect.

Very wrong. Look at the legal system it is not the wording of the law that matters but the spirit and intention of the law that matters. Hence if this was a legal case the judge would look at Bjorn invulnerable save and look at the written text only allowing him to use it against wounds and realise this was not the spirit or intention behind the law and hence Bjorn would get his save.

FlingitNow wrote:On the RaW of this issue I think sourclams is missing the point.

By RaW yes you get the save, but you can only use it against wounds. This is not due to some restriction.

Wrong. Cover Saves do not specify wounds, as Armor Saves and Invulnerable Saves do. This is a false restriction that you and a couple others are making up.

You see there is no game mechanic for determining when a Vehicle would take the save.

Do they take it against all hits (before armour penetration rolls are made)? If so point to the section in the rules that allows this,

Do they take the save against penetrating and glancing hits? If so point to the rule that allows this.

Do they take the saves against individual damage table results? If so...

You'll find there is nothing in the rulebook that satisfies any of the above only the mechanic that allows you to take the save against wounds, hence the argument...

This argument is irrelevant because nowhere under Vehicles and Cover-Obscured Targets is an order of operations, or how to actually take a cover save. If you are going to play this way, then you have to deny vehicles from taking a cover save, ever, since it is not allowed under Vehicles and Cover-Obscured Targets either.

So assuming that vehicles are actually able to take a cover save under certain circumstances, let's look at your final statement:

You'll find there is nothing in the rulebook that satisfies any of the above only the mechanic that allows you to take the save against wounds, hence the argument...

The Space Wolf Errata is the rule that satisfies the mechanic. Only the benefits of a 5+ cover save apply. Thus the mechanics are either ignored or considered fulfilled by the Stormcaller special rule.

This is what your argument fails to address. Assuming that vehicles can benefit from cover (and again, there's nothing in Vehicles and Cover-Obscured Targets that allows this, either), then Stormcaller fulfills all the necessary mechanics, and since Cover Saves do not specify Wounds, vehicles are eligible.

Well, now we will have to play no need for obscured with that power.

Thanks, sourclams.

Sourclams - no, you are (intentionally?) misrepresenting the power - the wording is VERY VERY different to the wording you are misquoting

[quote= SW Errata]‘he and all friendly units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save’

Suffice to say I disagree with your entire post, from the definition of 'Benefit', the lack of a 'Wounds' qualifier under both Taking Saves and Cover Saves, the effect of Stormcaller, and even your interpretation of Kustom Force Field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please, stop ignoring that the *entire* section on making saves only considers wounds, otherwise you are admitting that page 62 serves no purpose.

BRB wrote:Taking Saving Throws
Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw. This could be because of the target's armour, some other protective device or ability, or intervening models or terrain.

There is no reference to wounds. Not only is there no reference to wounds, but apparently only troops are allowed to take saving throws.

The rules then go on to explain how simple and complex units take saving throws, which is not relevant to vehicles.

But all of this is ignored by the Stormcaller rule since you skip all of the mechanics preceding the benefits of a 5+ cover save.