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.

You have bolded that they get the "benefits" of the cover save, whereas in fact they "benefit from" the cover save. Also, do not misreprent my post in the way you have altered the wording used in the SW errata: I stated what "benefit from" means, not "benefit". Please correct this or retract it.

Benefit from is an alternative way of saying "have". It is nothing like the phrase you obviously intentionally changed to have a different meaning. "The benefits of a 5+ cover save" has an ENTIRELY different meaning, and is deliberately misleading.

"If all the models in a unit are the same, and have a single wound each" - so , no mention of wounds? The complex units section also talks about wounds. (and you are yet again deficient about vehicles - complex squadrons follow the complex units rules...)

Context - the entire saving throws section deals with Wounds.

You are intentionally changing the wording, despite being given the (and was available anyway) correct phraseology, and therfore disagreeing with your post is trivial.

I would suggest using the correct phrase and not ignoring that saving throws *consistently* takls about Wounds and Wounds only.

So, are you stating that page 62 is irrelevant? Stating that cover saves can innately be taken against Hits (despite the saving throws section dealing only with wounds, and page 62 stating that the usual state for cover saves is against wounds...) is what you are stating, which makes the rules on page 62 irrleevant. Under *your* logic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have bolded that they get the "benefits" of the cover save, whereas in fact they "benefit from" the cover save. Also, do not misreprent my post in the way you have altered the wording used in the SW errata: I stated what "benefit from" means, not "benefit". Please correct this or retract it.

Benefit from is an alternative way of saying "have". It is nothing like the phrase you obviously intentionally changed to have a different meaning. "The benefits of a 5+ cover save" has an ENTIRELY different meaning, and is deliberately misleading.

Actually that's a synonym of benefit. The definition of 'Benefit' is simply 'to be useful or profitable to'.

Context - the entire saving throws section deals with Wounds.

Actually it deals with wounds on troops. So how do Elite choices take saving throws? Or is it okay to ignore this bit?

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.

"troops" not "Troop" - once is a proper noun referring to the units selected from the Troops section, one is a synonym for squads.

As I am sure you well know. Or I hope you're not being intentionally facetious?

a) I was stating what "Benefit From" meant in this sentence, not "Benefit" and b) both are *very different* to what you misquoted.

Benefit From == Have.

When a thread boils down to nouns, proper nouns, synonyms, and definitions, the discussion is effectively over.

I don't think there's anything of worth to your argument, by RAW, and you quite clearly think the same of mine, by your RAW.

Let the poll pick the winner.

FlingitNow wrote: The text is not the rules the ideas of the designers are the rules.

Without wanting to drag this too far off track, I felt that this needed addressing because it seems to reflect a very different attitude towards rules discussion which is, I believe, where a lot of the lack of understanding opposing viewpoints is coming from.

When you buy a rulebook for a game, you're buying a book that contains the rules for that game. That's the entire purpose of the book. Those rules may be flawed, or poorly written... but they are what they are.

The ideas of the designers are how they may have wanted the rules to be... but what they put in the actual book is what the rules actually are. Because that's what they have published... They've said: here's the rules, in this handy book.

The designers may have intended certain things to work differently. They may play differently to what is written in the book. They may change the written rules through errata or FAQs (whether or not such changes are actually listed as such)... but the rules as written are the rules. Ideas are just ideas.


You are, of course, perfectly free to ignore the RAW and play the game the way you personally think the designers intended it to be played. But in YMDC, whilst we'll often point out that we play differently to the rules, or give personal interpretations on rules that can be read multiple ways, we tend to put a lot more weight on the RAW than on the RAI... because in most cases, the RAW is all that we actually have. RAI is just down to guesswork as to what we may personally believe is the best way to play it. We very rarely have any way of knowing whether our own guess as to what is the RAI is even remotely what the designers actually had in mind.

I would like to take a moment to comment on the Poll question, or, more accurately, the poll responses. I think the wording alone is enough to alter responses. The statement that 'no' is "the rules" means that 'yes' is 'not the rules,' a point obviously under contention. I'd like to think that a less biased phrasing would have led to a more representative poll response ('more representative' here meaning 'as played'-- I've never yet seen a TO or PUG here that claimed vehicles could not take take cover, or that Bjorn's Invul save is just for show).

That said... I agree with sourclams-- the case has been made for RAW (absolutists) and for RAI/RAP (everyone else) so... how 'bout that local sports team?

kartofelkopf wrote: The statement that 'no' is "the rules" means that 'yes' is 'not the rules,' a point obviously under contention. I'd like to think that a less biased phrasing would have led to a more representative poll response

Given that the poll was asking for how people play it, rather than how people perceive the rules, I'm not seeing that the way the poll responses are worded makes a difference. 'No' means 'no' regardless of whether or not you agree that 'no' is RAW.

sourclams wrote:When a thread boils down to nouns, proper nouns, synonyms, and definitions, the discussion is effectively over.

I don't think there's anything of worth to your argument, by RAW, and you quite clearly think the same of mine, by your RAW.

Let the poll pick the winner.

You were the one that brought the utterly inane "troops" somehow meaning "Troops" idea into it. And also entirely changed the meaning of a sentence in order to justify your reading...

I take it you accept that your "RAW" requires that the "If obscured...." paragraph on page 62 is effectively irrelevant? You have stated, repeatedly, that cover saves can be taken against hits regardless of obscured or not, therefore that is the only logical conclusion. It is a faulty premise, but some confirmation from yourself that this is your effective position would be good, at least to show some consistency.

In my reading page 20/21 only *ever* consider wounds, and that page 62 is the only permission to convert cover saves from working against wounds (which page 62 confirms is the default position) to working against hits.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yakface - except you have removed the first sentence from that quote, the one which defines how to redefine the cover save:

BRB page 62 wrote:
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

Therefore "this cover save", referenced in the next sentence, can only be a cover save that is a result of being obscured - you MUST be obscured first before you can use a cover save against hits

Because that sentence is unimportant to the point of this argument. All you've done is quote the normal condition required for getting a cover save and the result if that condition is met.

The thing is, we're not talking about normal conditions. We have a specific case where another rule (Stormcaller) determines whether or not a unit gets a cover save instead of the usual condition.


So normally, this is the condition and effect regarding cover saves:


Normal Condition:

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit...


Normal Result for Meeting That Condition:

[If the vehicle is obscured]...it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.



But in the case of Stormcaller, it gives us its own condition and result for meeting that condition:


Stormcaller's Condition:

Is the vehicle within 6" of a friendly Psyker using Stormcaller?


Result for Meeting Stormcaller's Condition:

[If the vehicle is within 6" of a friendly Psyker using Stormcaller]...then it benefits from a cover save.



Anyone here claiming that the RAW prevents vehicles from getting a cover save from Stormcaller while not obscured is not following the rules. No one has provided a logical argument showing that the rules say that.

The only thing you can prove is that normally the only way to get a cover save for a vehicle is to have it obscured, but Stormcaller grants the vehicle permission to get a cover save simply for being within 6" of the psyker, so the normal condition has absolutely no bearing.

insaniak wrote:

Given that the poll was asking for how people play it, rather than how people perceive the rules, I'm not seeing that the way the poll responses are worded makes a difference. 'No' means 'no' regardless of whether or not you agree that 'no' is RAW.

Well, the poll question proper isn't asking that at all-- it's asking if vehicles get cover saves. But, even in the context of the topic, the options are still: Yes being the "simple" answer and No being the "by the Rules" answer.

Just saying that the poll answers are slanted. I think Yak's argument is the most compelling of the ones presented, yet, according to the Poll responses, his approach is not the 'rules.' Not that this is a scientific poll or anything, just think a more well-worded question would yield more representative answers.


Edit: for spelling and clarity

Yakface - that was *not* my argument.

Yes, the vehicle receives a 5+ cover save. However, as it is not *obscured*, it only has permission to use the cover save rules as defined on page 20/21 - which all talk about *wounds*

So, yes, it has a 5+ cover save. That works against *wounds*. The rules on page 62 tell you that if you are *obscured* you may then take the cover save against hits

No other permission exists to convert the cover save from working against wounds to working against hits. Page 62 tells us that the normal state for a cover save is it works against wounds, as do pages 20/21.

kartofelkopf wrote:I would like to take a moment to comment on the Poll question, or, more accurately, the poll responses. I think the wording alone is enough to alter responses. The statement that 'no' is "the rules" means that 'yes' is 'not the rules,' a point obviously under contention. I'd like to think that a less biased phrasing would have led to a more representative poll response ('more representative' here meaning 'as played'-- I've never yet seen a TO or PUG here that claimed vehicles could not take take cover, or that Bjorn's Invul save is just for show).

That said... I agree with sourclams-- the case has been made for RAW (absolutists) and for RAI/RAP (everyone else) so... how 'bout that local sports team?

And yet the "yes" results are still outweighing the "no" results.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yakface - that was *not* my argument.

Yes, the vehicle receives a 5+ cover save. However, as it is not *obscured*, it only has permission to use the cover save rules as defined on page 20/21 - which all talk about *wounds*

So, yes, it has a 5+ cover save. That works against *wounds*. The rules on page 62 tell you that if you are *obscured* you may then take the cover save against hits

No other permission exists to convert the cover save from working against wounds to working against hits. Page 62 tells us that the normal state for a cover save is it works against wounds, as do pages 20/21.

The RB says vehicles take cover saves like a non-vehicle model does against wounds. Being obscured grants a cover save, *not* specifically a cover save that can *only* be taken as a non-vehicle model against wounds.

This is the argument that I think ( I am not you of course) that you are not seeing. We are saying a 'cover save is a cover save' for a vehicle and can be made just like a model would against wounds as per the RB which is RAW. Being obscured is simply a condition which grants a cover save, not some special cover save that is somehow different from everything else. The RB makes no mention of any special vehicle type cover save at all....anything else is reading to much into a very simple rule which simply states that vehicles take cover saves just like a non-vehicle model would against a wound, and being obscured is simply the *normal* way it would get a cover save.

Except page 20/21 only deals with cover saves working against wounds, and page 62 states being obscured lets you *convert* the way a cover save works, against wounds, into one that works against hits. Hence "IF OBSCURED" - the condition is IF you are obscured THEN....

"obscured" both grants a cover save *and* the ability to use that cover save against hits. Permission does not exist anywhere else to use cover saves against hits - "If obscured" is the only time cover saves are stated as working against hits.

I do see the argument, it is just not how I read the rules - essentially if you state that a standard cover saves works againt wounds AND hits, page 62 becomes entirely redundant

Dashofpepper wrote:

And yet the "yes" results are still outweighing the "no" results.

Yes, now... and it's still a (relatively) close run thing. Like I said above, I've yet to see a TO or PUG that ruled the other way, so it's surprising to see a large percentage of dakkaites voting in that direction.

Maybe that's totally off-base, and the poll results would be the same. But, it seems having less biased poll responses will lead to results that more accurately reflect the way games are actually played.

On topic:

P62 addresses exceptions to "the normal rules for cover."

Obviously, stormcaller is not a "normal" method of acquiring cover, thus the 'normal' rules do not apply. Codex specifics > BRB general, and, RAW, p62 does not apply, as this is not a normal means of giving a vehicle cover.

Done, mark it.

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.

I never said this was a restriction I state specifically that it is not.

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.

Not irrelevant you're making things up now. The rules state in the obscured section that you take the save against penetrating and glancing hits. So that means when you suffer a penetrating or glancing hit you take the save that is the when.

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:

Given above this is irrelevant and wrong.

The Space Wolf Errata is the rule that satisfies the mechanic. Only the benefits of a 5+ cover save apply.

Yes the mechanic is they get the ebnefits of a cover save without the benefits of obscured. The benefits of a cover save (without the benefits of obscured) are you can take that save against wounds as specified under the mechanics for save throws. You have not provided a mechanic for a vehicle to take the save throw in any other way. QED


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Without wanting to drag this too far off track, I felt that this needed addressing because it seems to reflect a very different attitude towards rules discussion which is, I believe, where a lot of the lack of understanding opposing viewpoints is coming from.

When you buy a rulebook for a game, you're buying a book that contains the rules for that game. That's the entire purpose of the book. Those rules may be flawed, or poorly written... but they are what they are.

The ideas of the designers are how they may have wanted the rules to be... but what they put in the actual book is what the rules actually are. Because that's what they have published... They've said: here's the rules, in this handy book.

The designers may have intended certain things to work differently. They may play differently to what is written in the book. They may change the written rules through errata or FAQs (whether or not such changes are actually listed as such)... but the rules as written are the rules. Ideas are just ideas.

The laws that govern a country are written down yet it is not the wording that matters but the spirit and intention behind the Law (i.e. the RAI). You claim that strict RaW is the rules and claim that rules changes that are listed as clarifications are still changes but under strict RAW they are not as the words written down define them as clarifications. you can't have it both ways.

The rules are what GW designed and even going by strict RAW you can apply TMIR to make the rules WHATEVER the 2 players agree on now that may be RAW it may be RAI or it may be house rules.

You are, of course, perfectly free to ignore the RAW and play the game the way you personally think the designers intended it to be played. But in YMDC, whilst we'll often point out that we play differently to the rules, or give personal interpretations on rules that can be read multiple ways, we tend to put a lot more weight on the RAW than on the RAI... because in most cases, the RAW is all that we actually have. RAI is just down to guesswork as to what we may personally believe is the best way to play it. We very rarely have any way of knowing whether our own guess as to what is the RAI is even remotely what the designers actually had in mind.

This I agree with totally RAI is in general a guess at best and RAW is therefore the most consistent way to find an answer. But as proven by the SW FAQ this answer is not always correct (who'd have thought Counter Attack trigger Furious Assault).

However when RAI is so obvious and different to RAW then unless you agree specifically before hand that you are playing by RAW then RAI takes precedent as in the case for Bjorn's invulnerable save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

[If the vehicle is within 6" of a friendly Psyker using Stormcaller]...then it benefits from a cover save. /quote]

Why don't people read the thread. NO ONE is denying the vehicles gets a cover save. It is just the ONLY mechanic for them to benefit from it is to use it against a wound.

Normal Result for Meeting That Condition:

[If the vehicle is obscured]...it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.

Exactly but what does this mean? Does it mean you take the save against all hits? Only against Penetratring and glancing hits? Or against each individual damage result? You have not supplied a mechanism for taking the save against anything in particular out of above hence the only mechanic that applies is the one against wounds. Remember to take the save against Penetrating and Glancing hits you HAVE to be obscured under RAW. There is no rule defining that a Vehicle can take a save against specifically penetrating or glancing hits under any other circumstance.

FlingitNow wrote:
However when RAI is so obvious and different to RAW then unless you agree specifically before hand that you are playing by RAW then RAI takes precedent as in the case for Bjorn's invulnerable save.

The opposite in fact occurs, just so you know.

Flingitnow - no, unles you both agree to play by a houserule (RaI) then the written rules take precedence.

no, unles you both agree to play by a houserule (RaI) then the written rules take precedence.

RaI is not a house rule it is the rules. Even by RaW, RaW is not the rules (as I've illustrated elsewhere). When you agree to play Warhammer 40,000 you agree to play by the rules, using RaW as a toll to decide when RaI is not clear. If you want to play a house rule (i.e.e RaW when RaI is different) then that is fine. But by strict RaW you don't even get a game as I can just decide to have all my dice rolls 6s except LD as double 1s, why would you play such a game?

FlingitNow wrote:

no, unles you both agree to play by a houserule (RaI) then the written rules take precedence.

RaI is not a house rule it is the rules.

No, the Rules, as Written in the Rulebook that the Rules people Wrote, are the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:But by strict RaW you don't even get a game as I can just decide to have all my dice rolls 6s except LD as double 1s, why would you play such a game?

... How in the name of Russ's Left AND Right testicles do you think that? Please explain how you think, Rules as Written, I can decide to not roll the dice?

FlingitNow wrote:

no, unles you both agree to play by a houserule (RaI) then the written rules take precedence.

RaI is not a house rule it is the rules. Even by RaW, RaW is not the rules (as I've illustrated elsewhere). When you agree to play Warhammer 40,000 you agree to play by the rules, using RaW as a toll to decide when RaI is not clear. If you want to play a house rule (i.e.e RaW when RaI is different) then that is fine. But by strict RaW you don't even get a game as I can just decide to have all my dice rolls 6s except LD as double 1s, why would you play such a game?

The written rules are the actual rules of the game, "intent" is entirely unknowable...unless and until they write it down. At which point it should become the rules....

40k is a codified ruleset and sold as such.

No, the Rules, as Written in the Rulebook that the Rules people Wrote, are the rules.

You like other seem completely confused as to the purpose of language and whether the written wor di s capable of thought. It is not, language's only purpose is to communicate ideas it does not own, create nor change those ideas.

... How in the name of Russ's Left AND Right testicles do you think that? Please explain how you think, Rules as Written, I can decide to not roll the dice?

I never said you don't roll the dice but it does not define how the dice are "rolled" only that they must be rolled. PLlace a dice on a table with the "6" on the side, place your hand on top of the dice and roll it over so the 6 is on the top, the dice as rolled the result is 6...

The written rules are the actual rules of the game, "intent" is entirely unknowable...unless and until they write it down. At which point it should become the rules....

40k is a codified ruleset and sold as such.

No the rules are the rules that GW designed, and are sold as such. A codified rule set does not mean that the written word takes precedence over the inmtent of the writer. You are correct about intent being very difficult to know and RaW is a great tool to use when ever intent is unclear. But Bjorn's save throw is usable by him under the rules of the game, go ask the games designeras if you don't beleive me, though under RaW it is totally useless to him.

No, *unless* you are the writer of the rules *true* intent is impossible to convey - language is technically not up to the task.

The actual rules are those written down. Everything else is *not* the rules but the rules as GUESSED.

This appears to have gone as far as is in any way useful...