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.

Mannahnin wrote:So under your interpretion, how did the wording change from "squads" to "units" change the way the power functions?

It made it so it works. There is no such thing as Squads in 40k, only units.

Gwar! wrote:There is no such thing as Squads in 40k, only units.

The name has squad in it, but it is a "unit" by the rules. There is no such thing as a "Squad".

So by the way you play the game, before that change, the power had no effect?

Mannahnin wrote:So by the way you play the game, before that change, the power had no effect?

Yes. Now with the Errata, it gives a 5+ cover save vs wounds to any unit in range.

Mannahnin wrote:So by the way you play the game, before that change, the power had no effect?

So by the way you play the game, after the change, the power grants an effect to vehicles (the ability to take the save against hits) that it has no rules basis granting, and one that is granted in the rules only under a single specific condition which has not been met?
Despite clear RAW and the fact that the rule, even post errata, completely lacks the necessary language present in probably a dozen examples of rules that actually grant that effect specifically (Kff, smoke launchers, etc.)?

Mannahnin wrote:So under your interpretion, how did the wording change from "squads" to "units" change the way the power functions?

The Space Wolf codex has no "Squads" in it - it has units, and packs, but not Squads. So by changing the rule they actually made the rule work.

It doesn't mean that this ability works on vehicles, as vehicles MUST be obscured in order to benefit. This is in the rules for vehicles, and unless you can come up with a different *rules* interpretation then that IS the rules.

Clthomps: As I said, you have nothing to back up your interpretation within the rules, and you have chanmged the rule so it works differently to the written rules. This is fine, however you need to acknowledge it is a houserule. "Common sense" is *your* common sense - and bringing fluff in as your only basis is a sign the rules argument has been lost by yourself, as fluff /= rules and never have. Otherwise space marines can now kill hundreds of guard per space marine.

So Gwar! do you allow Bjorns invuln save to have nullify glancing and penetrating hits even though invuln saves only are used against wounds?

Volkov wrote:So Gwar! do you allow Bjorns invuln save to have nullify glancing and penetrating hits even though invuln saves only are used against wounds?

How many times does this Strawman have to come up? What I do and what the rules say have no relation to each other.

How many times does this Strawman have to come up? What I do and what the rules say have no relation to each other.

This wasn't actually an attempt at a strawman argument, I am just curious as to whether you follow this seeming 'hell or high water' RAW interpretation of yours

Gwar! wrote:What I do and what the rules say have no relation to each other.

Thats damn near sig wrothy

This is a rather interesting thread to see both sides give their interpetations.

Cover saves for infantry give a wide and yet defined ways for what meets the prerequisite for a cover save. As vehicles are much larger to prevent rule abuse of sticking one wheel or track into terrain and claiming cover( despite the direction ) like infantry can, GW had to make special rules to what is considered a cover save for vehicle. The normal way a vehicle gains cover is 50% of it needs to be obscured as the rules state, this prevents creative ways that vehicles can get saves by using what is defined for infantry. Obscured is one way to gain cover for a vehicle (50%) so is smoke. There is no physical object on the board that obscures the vehicle during smoke but one simply assumes that it does and very few people bring cotton for effect in games, so its just assumed.

Shroud of Sanguinis: Basically states that any unit in 6" gain a 5+ cover save. Technically an infantry model in the open gain no cover save as defined by cover saves for infantry but yet they fall into the category of unit and within 6" thus gains the save by the ability. Vehicles are no different as they are also classed as a unit and ability doesn't single them out in text as to not gaining the ability. The ability only checks two things, is it a unit and is it in 6" while any prerequisites for cover are superseded by the ability. Gwar may still argue using the Obscured rule by playing rules lawyer so then lets get a definition of shroud.

to cover; hide from view.

Synonyms with shroud are also conceal, screen and obscure. So by definition it is basically obscured.

Stormcaller: Is pretty much the same thing with a different name. The ability that says all units in X range gain a cover save over-rides any other prereq to normally gain a cover save. Its not so hard to assume a thick rain, fog or blizzard can conceal, screen, obscure or shroud the unit so it gains its cover save.

RAW is no where close to perfect as there is another thread of silly examples where Raw just fails because people don't read for the intended effect but rather at what was poorly worded yet its intended effect is obvious.

Except it isnt "rules lawyering" - it is call following the clearly laid out rules in the rulebook.

Your "proof by synonym" is bunk, as well.

NOONE is arguing they do not have a cover save, however *by the rules* if you want that cover save to work against Hits you MUST be obscured. No ifs, no buts, that is the ONLY way you are using that cover save against hits.

Except it isnt "rules lawyering" - it is call following the clearly laid out rules in the rulebook.

Just a FYI, GW has NEVER made a clear set of rules. If they did we would never need FAQ rule clarifications. Even the main rules state their will be times where they are supersceded by codexs, which btw happens quite a bit. There are many rules in the WH40k Rules Book that give refrence to rules in codexs taking precedence.

Your "proof by synonym" is bunk, as well.

Why? Simply because you say so? I think not. You have posted nothing relevant of an arguement to say otherwise. Just as it would be legally binding to say a person fired from their job vs a person who is terminated from his job as to having the same meaning.

NOONE is arguing they do not have a cover save, however *by the rules* if you want that cover save to work against Hits you MUST be obscured. No ifs, no buts, that is the ONLY way you are using that cover save against hits.

Another fallacy. If you go by the strict letter of cover save for infantry by the rules, it would be impossible for infantry in the open to claim it. As they meet none of the listed requirements but the ability of both Shroud of Sanguinis and Stormcaller supersedes the prerequisites with its ability if succesfully casted. If you still wish to argue about the Obscured rule, the word shroud pertains to the same meaning. At this point, only GW can make a ruling, and it would be basically if they see as something being to powerful or something they didn't intend. Yet by the exact words of Shroud of Sanguinis and the rules in Warhammer 40k Rules that state rules in Codex's taking precedence, until offically FAQ'd otherwise, stand as both giving infantry and vehicles ( both are units ) a 5+ cover save.

If you still wish to argue by clinging on to page 62 on obscure being the end all of end all. Please open your rule book to page 2 and I strongly suggest you read what is listed as " The Most Important Rule". The Most Important Rule also btw makes a mockery out of RAW being the holy grail. Read all 3 paragraphs and let it really sink in. Then maybe you will understand that those rules are a framework to use and that they can't cover all things that can happen in the game and some common sense will be basically used as well. Thus is why there is so many rules in the 40k rulebook that refer that codex rules take precedence as normal. Thus the codex rule from the Blood Angels on Shroud of Sanguinis giving ALL UNITS a 5+ cover save in 6" take precedence over the Warhammer 40k Rulebook until its FAQ'd as a correction.

Please see the tenets of YMDC - which you have just violated by invoking TMIR.

What you are confusing is where two rules have the *same name*, then the codex vcersion takes precedence. Please dont remvoe the context and try to apply it universally.

In addition the concept you are looking for is "specific > general" - the specific rule, usually the codex, wins out. But not always the codex, otherwise Sweeping Advance wouldnt work.

Page 62 states IF YOU ARE OBSCURED you take the save against hits. Stormcaller gives you a cover save, but not permission to change how that ocver save works. You can keep trying to say it dfoes, but the rules ARE clear in this instance - IF OBSCURED you take the save against hits - are you obscured? no? well guess what that means.

Gwar! wrote:

Volkov wrote:So Gwar! do you allow Bjorns invuln save to have nullify glancing and penetrating hits even though invuln saves only are used against wounds?

How many times does this Strawman have to come up? What I do and what the rules say have no relation to each other.

So how do you play storm caller and how do you play Bjorn's 5+ invul?

I will say this, it's almost downright impossible to play 40k in certain situations by strict RAW. It just doesn't work sometimes.

imweasel wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Volkov wrote:So Gwar! do you allow Bjorns invuln save to have nullify glancing and penetrating hits even though invuln saves only are used against wounds?

How many times does this Strawman have to come up? What I do and what the rules say have no relation to each other.

So how do you play storm caller and how do you play Bjorn's 5+ invul?

I will say this, it's almost downright impossible to play 40k in certain situations by strict RAW. It just doesn't work sometimes.

And what does that have to do with discussing the rules in a completely separate case? Stop trying to change the subject with straw man arguments.

How someone plays and what the rules are have no relation to each other. Please stop the Strawmans, thank you.

Rule for Infantry to gain a cover save or to be considered in cover pg 21

When any part of the target model's body (as defined
on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the
firer, the target model is in cover.

So by this definition, infantry doesn't get a cover save either from Stormcaller or Shroud on Sanguinis. Again its not hard to understand on how these 2 psychic powers work from the way they read.

Check List for Shroud of Sanguinis

1) Psyker made his test to cast the ability?

2) Is the model a Unit?

3) Is the unit with in 6" of the psyker who casted?

4) If the check list of 1, 2, 3 are met the unit gains a cover save and the normal prerequisite for a cover save is waved.

This is so crystal clear I am rather entertained on the notion that it could be seen any other way.

Borris the Blade wrote:Rule for Infantry to gain a cover save or to be considered in cover pg 21

When any part of the target model's body (as defined
on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the
firer, the target model is in cover.

So by this definition, infantry doesn't get a cover save either from Stormcaller or Shroud on Sanguinis. Again its not hard to understand on how these 2 psychic powers work from the way they read.

Check List for Shroud of Sanguinis

1) Psyker made his test to cast the ability?

2) Is the model a Unit?

3) Is the unit with in 6" of the psyker who casted?

4) If the check list of 1, 2, 3 are met the unit gains a cover save and the normal prerequisite for a cover save is waved.

This is so crystal clear I am rather entertained on the notion that it could be seen any other way.

You are entirely missing the thrust of the argument.

YES, the vehicle HAS a Cover Save. And it can use that Cover Save against any and all WOUNDS that it receives.

Let me reiterate that; a Cover Save is good against WOUNDS, and Wounds ONLY. Not Glancing or Penetrating Hits.

The only way a vehicle can receive a save against HITS, is by being Obscured. Does the power Obscure Vehicles? If not, then that Cover Save does exactly gak-all for it.

Borris the Blade wrote:Rule for Infantry to gain a cover save or to be considered in cover pg 21

When any part of the target model's body (as defined
on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the
firer, the target model is in cover.

So by this definition, infantry doesn't get a cover save either from Stormcaller or Shroud on Sanguinis. Again its not hard to understand on how these 2 psychic powers work from the way they read.

Check List for Shroud of Sanguinis

1) Psyker made his test to cast the ability?

2) Is the model a Unit?

3) Is the unit with in 6" of the psyker who casted?

4) If the check list of 1, 2, 3 are met the unit gains a cover save and the normal prerequisite for a cover save is waved.

This is so crystal clear I am rather entertained on the notion that it could be seen any other way.

Wow, just wow. You have 100% entirely missed the entire 3 pages of posts. Wow.

Have /= Use. For the 100th time they HAVE a cover save, however this cover save works against WOUNDS. WOUNDS. WOUNDS. got that?

Sheesh.

IF you are obscured then you are allowed to USE (see, a different word! Not the same as "have"!) this cover save against Hits.

So, NOONE is stating they do not have a cover save - if you would possibly have the courtesy to *read* others arguments and make a vague attempt to comphrehend them this would have been stunnungly clear to you. They HAVE a cover save, just if they want to USE it against HITS instead of wounds they ALSO need to be obscured.

This isnt very difficult.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please see the tenets of YMDC - which you have just violated by invoking TMIR..

Ok close your mouth right here. You have absolutely NO room to talk about rules violations, cause you do it on a daily basis.

Seriously, take a chill pill and stop trying to hide behind a false wall.

Borris has every right to an opinion, and so far has shown a very mature amount of patience in keeping a level head. Stop trying to be a wallfly mod and let the man speak his mind.

jp400 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please see the tenets of YMDC - which you have just violated by invoking TMIR..

Ok close your mouth right here. You have absolutely NO room to talk about rules violations, cause you do it on a daily basis.

Seriously, take a chill pill and stop trying to hide behind a false wall.

I notice no proof with this accusation.
You too also "do it" on a daily basis. I would go further as to say you do it on an hourly basis (or do you? I'M ASKING QUESTIONS!).

It is not a false wall. nosferatu1001 has pointed out time and time again what the rules say. Just because you don't like it you accuse him of breaking the rules when you have just done so.

KEEP IT ON TOPIC - or there will be... trouble?

jp400 wrote:Seriously, take a chill pill and stop trying to hide behind a false wall.

Borris has every right to an opinion, and so far has shown a very mature amount of patience in keeping a level head. Stop trying to be a wallfly mod and let the man speak his mind.

Could you please show me this "false wall"? If you could show me a hole in my argument that would be great. And on topic.

You are entirely missing the thrust of the argument.

YES, the vehicle HAS a Cover Save. And it can use that Cover Save against any and all WOUNDS that it receives.

Let me reiterate that; a Cover Save is good against WOUNDS, and Wounds ONLY. Not Glancing or Penetrating Hits.

The only way a vehicle can receive a save against HITS, is by being Obscured. Does the power Obscure Vehicles? If not, then that Cover Save does exactly gak-all for it.

This statement is also wrong. You are implying that a vehicle has a different save all together and thus would be called something different. Yet its still called a cover save in the Vehicle section under page 62. Let me quote.

Vehicle

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

As you see, a cover save and the word cover save is directly stated, not " vehicle save", not " Penetrate / Glancing save" but a cover save. The word wound is synonomous in game with many other vague classifications that also gain a cover save. Common sense should prevail in many cases but people seem to believe if the rules state that 2 + 2 = 4 and since it doen't state that 3 + 1 = 4 that 3 + 1 = 4 is wrong no matter how logical it may be.

Vehicle

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.

pg 62 WH40K RB

vs

Infantry

When any part of the target model's body (as defined
on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the
firer, the target model is in cover.

pg 21 WH40K RB

Again the only difference that a vehicle on a cover save vs a infantry on a cover save is the portion obscured. The rules for both requires them to be obscured as stated, 50% for vehicles and simply any portion for infantry. Again this is a rule to prevent vehicle abuse like saying my gun barrel on my tank is out of your LoS thus I gain a cover save.


The only way to get the word cover save is to meet the preconditions, obscured for infantry or obscured w/ min 50% in the direction facing the shooter, OR
have an ability that flat out gives it, in which case precondtions normally needed to get a cover save are waved by the ability.

Sorry, that is flat out wrong, as has been explained. Also, please do not insert Strawman arguments, that is pure fail. At no point have I, or anyone, ever said they have a different save, ever.

They HAVE a cover save. Ok? However in the rule you quoted they can only *use* that cover save against Hits IF THEY ARE OBSCUREd. Utility, not possession.

If they are obscured they may USE the cover save against Hits. No other permission exists to use the save against Hits except in that sentence. If it does you have yet to show it in any of your quotes.

NOw, where in the rules for Stormcaller are they counted as Obscured? Theyre not? then IF OBSCURED kicks in, meaning they do NOT have permission to use the cover save against Hits, only wounds. As that is the default state for all cover saves - they save against wounds

Come back to me when vehicles have wounds.

Short version: the rules on page 20/21 only allow cover saves to be taken against wounds. Page 62 states that the only way to takje that cover save against hits is to be obscured. If you are not obscured, you do not have permission to take the save against Hits - nothing at all.

Now, permissive ruleset - show me where you are allowed to USE (underlined so you can see the crux of the argument - not possession but utility) this cover save you have been granted to save hits (penetrating or glancing) in the same way as you would wounds. If you are unable to do so, with a DIRECT quote stating EXAC TLy that, then you have conceded.

Borris the Blade wrote:
This statement is also wrong. You are implying that a vehicle has a different save all together and thus would be called something different. Yet its still called a cover save in the Vehicle section under page 62. Let me quote.

Vehicle

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

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as
infantry – their sheer size and bulk mean they cannot
take advantage of cover as well as infantry and other
smaller, more agile troops.

Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area
terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence.
• Obviously, vehicles cannot go to ground, voluntarily
or otherwise.

If the target is obscured...

For more evidence look at smoke launchers it says they temporralily obscure the tank in smoke thus granting it a 4 plus cover save.
But

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

so personally i think it grants it a cover save if the psyker gives the unit the save but also can be taken from being obscured too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or we could totally miff the rune priest and take a space marinepsker who give a 5+ inuvlerble save everybody wins .

Grey elder - for the 100th time YES they HAVE a cover save. Unfortunately page 20/21 only lets you use a cover save against wounds.

Do vehicles have wounds? No? Then youre stuffed. You have a save that you cannot use.

The ONLY way to get a cover save to work against Hits as well as wounds is to be obscured, or to have a codex special rule that says so. Stormcaller does not do this, so again, you're stuffed - you can only use the save against wounds.

Can people please read the argument and respond to it? It's not that difficult: a vehicle having a save is not the same as having permission to sue that save against Hits. That permission only, so far, comes frmo page 62 and *requires* that you are obscured. So yes, stormcaller gives the vehicle a cover save, it just can only use it against the wounds it doesnt have.

Lastly: the same issue occurs with invulnerable saves, in that they also only save against wounds. Here there isnt even a BRB mechanism for transforming a wounds-only invulnerable save into one that works agisnt hits, it needs to be specified in the unit entry - like it does for Bjorn.