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.

Here are 3 examples with rules that were explicitly written to give cover saves to vehicles.

Pg 71 BRB
A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in its last Movement phase counts as obscured(cover save of 4+) when fired at.

Pg 62 BRB
Once per game, after completing its move, a vehicle with smoke launchers can trigger them (it doesn't matter how far it moved.) Place some cotton wool or other suitable marker on or around the vehicle to show it is obscured. The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used it's smoke launchers, but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save.

Pg 30 Tau Codex
A disruption pod throws out distroing images in both visual and magnetic spectra, making it hard to target at range. Weapons firing at the vehicle from more than 12" distant count the vehicle as an Obscured target.

Considering all of these were written prior to the SW Codex, it's my belief that if they intended Storm Caller to grant a useable cover save to vehicles then they would have explicitly given vehicles the obscured status and then stated that it grants a 5+ cover save.

I'd argue none of those examples are particularly relevant. 2 are from the rulebook itself so the consistent wording is not surprising (OK still a little surprising but hey) and the other is from a codex written for the 4th edition rules wher ethe cover system for vehciles worked entierly differently (as did the damage system).

The smoke launchers from the SM codex are a much better example and I presume they reside in the SW codex too (making them hugely more relevant). Not conclusive on the RaI but certainly indicative along with the reasonable argument that squad was changed to units in the powers rules as squads has no meaning in the SW codex (Meaning by RaW nothing would benefit).

Not being a SW (or BA player as they have the same issue) I'm still inclined to let them take the cover save if I was playing them but I'd expect a TO to rule the opposite direction in most cases and it certainly seems the RaI it not obvious (as I first thought).

You missed the Ork KFF which also grants 'Obscured' status to vehicles, and predates the SW codex.

You missed the Ork KFF which also grants 'Obscured' status to vehicles, and predates the SW codex.

And predates 5th Ed rulebook too...

Examples of wording matching from a 4th ed codex actually points towards RaI being that vehicles always take saves against Penetrating and glancing hits and the fluff about obscured was put in to work in concert with the older codexes wording.

Actually I have the 4th edition rulebook with me. It specifically says ' If the target (vehicle) is obscured and a penetrating hit is scored - on a roll of a 4+, the penetrating hit is downgraded to a glancing hit' The only change to the rules is, therefore, the fact that you can simply ignore them now instead of downgrading them, which made being obscured better but in no way shape or form changed when you take 'cover' saves, ie only if the vehicle is obscured.

FlingitNow wrote:
And predates 5th Ed rulebook too...

Examples of wording matching from a 4th ed codex actually points towards RaI being that vehicles always take saves against Penetrating and glancing hits and the fluff about obscured was put in to work in concert with the older codexes wording.

Which would be relevant if:
1. We had an example 4th rule that was completely obviously intended to protect vehicles from shooting but didn't include the wording (or similar wording)

2. Vehicles were simply allowed to take any cover saves they were granted in 4th against hits (I don't believe they could)

As we don't have either, the 4th ed rules for protecting vehicles we have all include obscured. Which, if anything, strongly supports the RAI that obscured is necessary.

Either way, the RAI doesn't really matter as the written rules are functional and clear.

Read my previous post I concede that there are good examples (like the one provided by yourself) just pointing out the ones made aren't.

And:

1. Yeah that would be nice but as you say no such thing exists.

2. Vehicles didn't take cover saves at all in 4th Ed. Obscured meant that all hits counted as glancing rather than penetrating.

the RAI doesn't really matter as the written rules are functional and clear.

What?!?!? The rules don't matter because the RaW functions and is clear. The RaW is functional and clear that Spore mines aren't removed when they explode does that mean we ignore the rules and have them always explode at least twice?

The rules always matter no matter how functional or clear the RaW may be.

I think the brunt of the discussion comes down to how people read the first sentence regarding obscured and cover saves. Everyone seems to agree that the vehicle gets a cover save, but disagrees on if it can be applied using the rules.

If we look at the sentence in question.
Page 62 of BRB
"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 (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on). "

It uses the phrase "may take a cover save". This is an ambiguous statement in the English language as the word "may" has two generally accepted meanings.

From Dictionary.com
May
1.
(used to express possibility): It may rain.
2.
(used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.

If you use the first definition for may, then obscured is just a possible way to take a cover save. There are other ways to be granted a cover save and the second sentence tells you how to apply the cover save to the vehicle.

Page 62 of BRB
"If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table."


If instead, you use the second definition for may, then the rule book has told you the only permitted way that a cover save can be taken for a vehicle. So, unless it is obscured, you may not take a save.


The RAW in the vehicle cover save section is indeterminate and not as cut and dry as others seem to believe. What we have is a difference in the interpretation of the rule, which falls under RAI. I don't think this is going to be settled on the forum. Maybe GW will release an updated FAQ for the wolves yet again, or FAQ the Blood Angel power in order to clarify this issue for everyone.

Except that the entire rulebook is written as a permissive ruleset, therefore only the secodn definition actually matters - as it is the only permission given to change the way the rules are defined initially.

If you take the first definition,then you have opened up the entire ruleset needing to be prohibitive, which isnt at all the way the rules are written.

Gwar! wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:So Black Templar Drop Pods cannot shoot when they Deepstrike in?

Yes, they can, because the rule found in the codex is more specific than the rule found in the Rulebook.

By your Logic, Sweeping Advance and Power Weapons do not work.

SA says "No Saves"
Codex Goes "I HAVE A SAVE"

Power Weapons say "No Armour Saves"
Codex Says "I HAVE AN ARMOUR SAVE"

You can't have it both ways. Either the BRB always trumps what is said in codexes, or you have to acknowledge that codexes change the rules in certain instances.

If Templars pods can shoot, then SW vehicles get the cover save.

If you use the first definition for may, then obscured is just a possible way to take a cover save. There are other ways to be granted a cover save and the second sentence tells you how to apply the cover save to the vehicle.

The 2nd sentence firstly only applies to the subject defined in the first sentenced. However even ignoring this the 2nd sentence does not tell how WHEN to take the cover save.

I have a 5+ cover save. I have a rule permitting me to take it against each wounding hit and a rule saying if I pass the test I can ignore a penetrating/glancing hit. I have no rule saying I may take it against said hits unless I have the obscured status, a staus which I do not have.

So if I receive a wounding hit I can take my cover save and that will negate the effects on a glancing/penetrating hit. If I take a glancing/penetrating hit I have no rule allowing me to roll a save against it and no mechanism for determining at which point I take the save or how many saves I take per glancing/penetrating hit.

Also, you do know that 3rd edition Storm Caller could be used on vehicles. Anyone have the language for that? There were what, 4 different wordings of the power in the different editions, and then several FAQ's.

If Templars pods can shoot, then SW vehicles get the cover save.

Yes no one is saying they don't get the cover save. It is just that they only have permission to use this cover save against any wounding hits they receive. I guessing this is not going to be of huge benefit to them.

Codex does trump BRB when it overrides a specific rule (as in the case with BT DPs). But if it does not override a specific rule then it does not override the BRB.

The codex in this instance specifically gives the vehicle a cover save. It does not override the obscured restriction on taking said cover save against glancing/penetrating hits so it can only be used against wounding hits.

Just like the you can't re-roll a re-roll rule prohibits you from using 2 different things to giving you a re-roll each from a codex to re-roll a re-roll.

FlingitNow wrote:What?!?!? The rules don't matter because the RaW functions and is clear. The RaW is functional and clear that Spore mines aren't removed when they explode does that mean we ignore the rules and have them always explode at least twice?

Yes, you do. The Rules ARE the RaW, no matter how much you scream otherwise.

RaI also equals RaW, as if they did not intend for it to be written as such, they would not have written it as such.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that the entire rulebook is written as a permissive ruleset, therefore only the secodn definition actually matters - as it is the only permission given to change the way the rules are defined initially.

If you take the first definition,then you have opened up the entire ruleset needing to be prohibitive, which isnt at all the way the rules are written.

Not quite, using the word "may" is permissive in both definitions, expressing possibility only means that there are options available to the player. The same as the wording for shooting from vehicles.
Page 58 of the BRB
"Vehicles that moved at combat speed may fire a single weapon"

The first definition would say that the player has the possibility to shoot a single weapon.
The second definition would say that the player has permission to shoot a single weapon.

Both definitions are permissive in nature, the ruleset doesn't need to be prohibitive.

FlingitNow wrote:

If Templars pods can shoot, then SW vehicles get the cover save.

Yes no one is saying they don't get the cover save. It is just that they only have permission to use this cover save against any wounding hits they receive. I guessing this is not going to be of huge benefit to them.

Codex does trump BRB when it overrides a specific rule (as in the case with BT DPs). But if it does not override a specific rule then it does not override the BRB.

The codex in this instance specifically gives the vehicle a cover save. It does not override the obscured restriction on taking said cover save against glancing/penetrating hits so it can only be used against wounding hits.

Just like the you can't re-roll a re-roll rule prohibits you from using 2 different things to giving you a re-roll each from a codex to re-roll a re-roll.

Being obstructed gives a cover save.

Fast skimmer flying 12+ inches gives a cover save.

Being affected by Storm Caller gives a cover save.

I fail to see where in the rule book it differentiates cover saves. Gwar and company are interpeting the rules and putting their spin on it. Go back one step. Follow the rule to the letter. Do not throw any interpetation to it.

Gwar.. you've made your point (and I see your point and I think it is correct and logical) but other people are obviously not bothering to pay attention so theres no need to keep responding to crazy posts.

But why would Sweeping advance not work if Codex did infact trump Rulebook? Im curious

Razerous wrote:Gwar.. you've made your point (and I see your point and I think it is correct and logical) but other people are obviously not bothering to pay attention so theres no need to keep responding to crazy posts.

But why would Sweeping advance not work if Codex did infact trump Rulebook? Im curious

Sweeping Advance says "No save or special rule can save them".

The codex says you have a save!

The same can be said of power weapons. BRB Says "No Saves", the codex says "I have a save!"

Yes, you do. The Rules ARE the RaW, no matter how much you scream otherwise.

RaW is not The Rules and never has been nor will it ever be until GW hire some compettant rules writers even then it is highly unlikely RaW would be the rules because mistakes and miss-wordings would still happen (just not quite as frequently as currently).

Being obstructed gives a cover save.

Fast skimmer flying 12+ inches gives a cover save.

Being affected by Storm Caller gives a cover save.

I fail to see where in the rule book it differentiates cover saves. Gwar and company are interpeting the rules and putting their spin on it. Go back one step. Follow the rule to the letter. Do not throw any interpetation to it.

How many times do poeple have to spell out that no one is saying you don't get a cover save? Yes you get the cover save but you can only use it against glancing and penetrating hits.

If you disagree with the RaW please post a rule that allows a model to take a save (or cover save) against a penetrating or glancing hit. The only one I am aware of demands that you have the obscured status. If you know of another please post it with page reference.

Just had another thought, at the bottom of page 62 of the BRB

"It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a 3+ cover save."

This does not explicitly grant obscured status to the vehicle, just the save. So can this scenario occur without the vehicle being obscured? The answer is yes! See below.

page 62 of BRB
"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"

So the facing being targeted must be 50% hidden to be obscured, but they can opt to target a different facing than normal according to the first rule. This alternate facing is not guaranteed to be 50% hidden and I have illustrated an example where it would not be. The firer cannot see the facing he is in, fully hidden, but they can see all of the facing they are targeting (the side armor). Therefore if you follow the arguement that the cover save cannot work without obscured status then there are many possibilities for this rule to grant no save at all!

So let me get this straight... Spore Mines don't get removed when they explode?

wolvesoffenris wrote:Just had another thought, at the bottom of page 62 of the BRB

"It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a 3+ cover save."

This does not explicitly grant obscured status to the vehicle, just the save. So can this scenario occur without the vehicle being obscured? The answer is yes! See below.

page 62 of BRB
"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"

So the facing being targeted must be 50% hidden to be obscured, but they can opt to target a different facing than normal according to the first rule. This alternate facing is not guaranteed to be 50% hidden and I have illustrated an example where it would not be. The firer cannot see the facing he is in, fully hidden, but they can see all of the facing they are targeting (the side armor). Therefore if you follow the arguement that the cover save cannot work without obscured status then there are many possibilities for this rule to grant no save at all!

Correct. And this affects this argument... how? The 3+ cover save can only be used if the vehicle is obscured. If the vehicle is not obscured, the firer gets a clear shot, even if it is "angled".

Makes sense to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ihatehumans wrote:So let me get this straight... Spore Mines don't get removed when they explode?

Nope. They are, however, hot by their own blast, which means they explode again, and then are removed

wolvesoffenris Yes it is true you would not be able to use that 3+ cover save if you were not obscured. But I fail to see how you could have your entire facing covered and not be obscured? You only 50% cover so I'm pretty certain having 100% covered would grant you the obscured status.

Gwar! wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:So let me get this straight... Spore Mines don't get removed when they explode?

Nope. They are, however, hit by their own blast, which means they explode again, and then are removed

Unless you roll a 1 to wound them in which case they can carry on or would explode again if there were still enemies around them if for instance they had assaulted a unit or just not killed the model touching them when they first exploded.

FlingitNow wrote:wolvesoffenris Yes it is true you would not be able to use that 3+ cover save if you were not obscured. But I fail to see how you could have your entire facing covered and not be obscured? You only 50% cover so I'm pretty certain having 100% covered would grant you the obscured status.

Gwar! wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:So let me get this straight... Spore Mines don't get removed when they explode?

Nope. They are, however, hit by their own blast, which means they explode again, and then are removed

Unless you roll a 1 to wound them in which case they can carry on or would explode again if there were still enemies around them if for instance they had assaulted a unit or just not killed the model touching them when they first exploded.

Yup, good point. My Bad

Spore Mines went from useless to Godly. Before they were 1 use and gave up KP, now they don;t give up KP and are multiple use, and can move normally and can assault

Though I don't advise you ever try to pull that in a game because:

a) It is cheating

b) You'll probably get slapped or at least hated.

FlingitNow wrote:Though I don't advise you ever try to pull that in a game because:

a) It is cheating

Ladies in gentlemen: Flingitnow!
He'll call you a cheater for following the rules in the book but not the ones in his head!

General Hobbs wrote:Being obstructed gives a cover save.

And then explicitly states that this save can be used against hits, as it fulfils the requirements of page 62.

General Hobbs wrote:Fast skimmer flying 12+ inches gives a cover save.

No, it gives you obscured status whcih tehn gives you a cover save. And this fulfils the requirements on page 62, and the save may then be used against hits instead of wounds.

General Hobbs wrote:Being affected by Storm Caller gives a cover save.

Except the save does not state it can be used against hits, therefore it only saves against wounds. This is because it doesnt fulfil the requirements for page 62.

General Hobbs wrote:I fail to see where in the rule book it differentiates cover saves. Gwar and company are interpeting the rules and putting their spin on it. Go back one step. Follow the rule to the letter. Do not throw any interpetation to it.

We're not interpreting the rules, you are entirely ignoring the rules. And how are you missing the line on page 62 which states the only way you can take a save against hits is to be Obscured? IF you are finding permission elsewhere then you really should, you know, actually post some rules?

He'll call you a cheater for following the rules in the book but not the ones in his head!

I'll call you a cheater for willfully breaking the rules of the game. Any one that plays that Spore mines aren't removed when they explode is doing this. Just like anyone claiming the Swarmlord's Paroxysm lasts for ever or that the Doom of Malan'tai does get a 3++ save or that Monolith's gain a shot from every weapon destroyed result...

FlingitNow wrote:

He'll call you a cheater for following the rules in the book but not the ones in his head!

I'll call you a cheater for willfully breaking the rules of the game. Any one that plays that Spore mines aren't removed when they explode is doing this. Just like anyone claiming the Swarmlord's Paroxysm lasts for ever or that the Doom of Malan'tai does get a 3++ save or that Monolith's gain a shot from every weapon destroyed result...

Actually, it's the exact opposite. By the rules, Spore mines aren't removed when they explode, Swarmlord's Paroxysm doesn't work at all, the Doom of Malan'tai doesn't get a 3++ save and the Monolith's gain a shot from every weapon destroyed result.

Actually, it's the exact opposite. By the rules, Spore mines aren't removed when they explode, Swarmlord's Paroxysm doesn't work at all, the Doom of Malan'tai doesn't get a 3++ save and the Monolith's gain a shot from every weapon destroyed result.

Wrong again Gwar the rules are clear clear on all these points. Whilst RaW is on you side unfortunately for you RaW =/= The rules, never has done and never will