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.

Boris the Blade FTW... Very well proposed argument. Backed by rules and logic. You convinced, me whereas the opposing argument seems to fall short.

Beast wrote:Boris the Blade FTW... Very well proposed argument. Backed by rules and logic. You convinced, me whereas the opposing argument seems to fall short.

Except it ignores the rule "If obscured...." which is the only method by whcih a cover save that works against wounds can be used to save against Hits.

So, apart from the massive flaw in the argument where it ignores the critical rule that has been mentioned 100 times now it is backed by rules.

So would you care to explain how his argument convinced you to ignore the lines of text specifically saying that a vehicle must be obscured to use it's cover save?

Once again I would like someone to address how they ignore "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"
a) the specific reference to glance/pen
b) permission to use cover saves for this type of save
c) the whole starting line of in the vehicle is obscured do this.

Once again having is not the same as being allowed to use, see armour saves vs invulnerable saves so a simple example.

Please try and address the argument and less of these 'feelings' (argumentum ad hominem), ignoring the support of the rules (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and I'm pretty sure the Fallacy of False Cause more specifically, post hoc ergo propter hoc. But I'm just some dumb guy, with 'tops' reading comprihension.

Gwar is right

Not that I agree with that in actual gameplay...

Personally, you should go wild and bring along a dry ice machine complete with suspended watering can to provide rain and an induction fan to create wind. Then direct your swirling maelstrom at your board and claim your vehicle is obscured

lunarman wrote:Gwar is right

Not that I agree with that in actual gameplay...

Personally, you should go wild and bring along a dry ice machine complete with suspended watering can to provide rain and an induction fan to create wind. Then direct your swirling maelstrom at your board and claim your vehicle is obscured

Just to point out, nosferatu1001 is the one who should be credited, all I did was back him up on the RaW

I'm still waiting to hear the shortcoming of the argument - if I or others have missed something, it would be good to know, as it would simplify a lot.

Seems water tight to me, but im close to it. And also mildly frustrated everytime a new posters response is "but they have a save! you're saying they dont!" when that is the exact opposite of the argument...

Except it ignores the rule "If obscured...." which is the only method by whcih a cover save that works against wounds can be used to save against Hits.

So, apart from the massive flaw in the argument where it ignores the critical rule that has been mentioned 100 times now it is backed by rules.

Ah, the same rule I posted and quoted earlier that infantry needs to be obscured also to gain a cover save. So by your logic, infantry still gains the cover save despite not being obscured while a Vehicle doesn't get a cover save as the definitions of being obscured work completly different ( not just talking about the 50% )? One speaks of "strawman rules" but yet its not me who is grasping.

Once again I would like someone to address how they ignore "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"
a) the specific reference to glance/pen exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a
wound"
b) permission to use cover saves for this type of save No permission is needed only under normal circumstances needs a basic prereq of 50% obscured in the direction of the fired shot
c) the whole starting line of in the vehicle is obscured do this. Again under normal circumstances which are waved or replaced by the ability itself. Just like infantry

That is indeed the rules I quoted under normal circumstances that a vehicle gains a save. What you did fail to mention was my comparison that the rules for infantry also need to be obscured ( though not by 50%) to gain a cover save. Since you keep defacto'ing to the obscured rule, then how does the ability get around the obscured rule for infantry but not vehicles? There is never a question about infantry getting the cover save though by Raw they aren't obscured as the rules state but the rules for the ability flat out gives it to them, thus waving the normal pre-requisites for qualifying for a cover save.

Too many people try to play with Raw and their interpetations of it. There is a post showing examples of how flawed it is ( if used in strict interpetations of it ), where common sense and logic would quickly prevail. There is also a thread that is several pages long on arguing, due to Raw on Eldrad in hand to hand combat that should be so simple to work out but arguements like "Raw doesn't cover a model with 3 weapons so he doesn't get an attack" gives Raw little credability to use on a word for word basis but should be based on the intent. IF Raw says 2 + 2 = 4 but says nothing about 3 + 1 = 4 or 2 x 2 = 4 then only 2 + 2 = 4? Again common sense and logic

Borris the Blade wrote:
Ah, the same rule I posted and quoted earlier that infantry needs to be obscured also to gain a cover save. So by your logic, infantry still gains the cover save despite not being obscured while a Vehicle doesn't get a cover save as the definitions of being obscured work completly different ( not just talking about the 50% )? One speaks of "strawman rules" but yet its not me who is grasping.

That is indeed the rules I quoted under normal circumstances that a vehicle gains a save. What you did fail to mention was my comparison that the rules for infantry also need to be obscured ( though not by 50%) to gain a cover save. Since you keep defacto'ing to the obscured rule, then how does the ability get around the obscured rule for infantry but not vehicles?

Seriously, seriously, what part of the difference between 'GAIN' and 'USE' is so difficult to get here?

INFANTRY GAIN A COVER SAVE. THEY CAN USE A COVER SAVE AGAINST WOUNDS WITHOUT BEING OBSCURED, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF HAVING A COVER SAVING THROW AND THE SAVING THROW RULES.

VEHICLES GAINS A COVER SAVE. IN ORDER TO USE THE SAVE AGAINST GLANCING AND PENETRATING HITS, A SPECIAL USE GRANTED ONLY BY A DIFFERENT RULE, THEY MUST BE OBSCURED.

Repeatedly pointing out that the vehicle has a cover save or that infantry normally gain a cover save through obscurement has nothing to do with the argument. You are quite simply wrong in the RAW, and are arguing points that have no application here.

Ah, so no permission is needed?
Awesome. I get 2+ Cover saves in the open then, as I don't need permission to have or use them!

Personally, you should go wild and bring along a dry ice machine complete with suspended watering can to provide rain and an induction fan to create wind. Then direct your swirling maelstrom at your board and claim your vehicle is obscured

That would be cool to do if I could only figure out how to keep it in a 12" diameter and 6" while not effecting the terrain. Kinda like everyone should bring enough cotton cover 50% of their vehicle from every angle when they pop smoke but majority never brings it and those that do rarely if ever to provide enough of it to properly obscure it. Yet I find a marker chip or simply claiming it by my opponents to be enough for me to play the game. Then again I could take your sarcasm and say that my opponent needs to build a fire and provide enough smoke on the model that is claiming it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ah, so no permission is needed?
Awesome. I get 2+ Cover saves in the open then, as I don't need permission to have or use them!

Do you have an ability that gives you this? If so congrats

Borris the Blade wrote:provide enough smoke on the model that is claiming it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ah, so no permission is needed?
Awesome. I get 2+ Cover saves in the open then, as I don't need permission to have or use them!

Do you have an ability that gives you this? If so congrats

Do you have an ability that grants you the obscured stats?
If so congrats you can use you cover save. If you don't have a great time enjoying your save that you can't use.

sheesh see the KFF entry if you're still not convinced.

So let me get this clear. If I want to get in on this argument I need to just bash my head uselessly against a wall? Awesome. *bashes away*

Now on topic. Yes they get a cover save but can't use it. The 50% of a unit is ignored by the special rules in the codex. Meaning that both tanks and infantry gain/have a cover save. YAY! I hope everyone is following this highly complex explanation.

Now that my units have their cover save they are going to be shot at =O My infantry take some WOUNDS, and my vehicles take some glancing and penetrating HITS. Now which one of you wants to tell me which one gets to USE their cover save that lets them save against WOUNDS? Is it the infantry that took WOUNDS, or the vehicles that took HITS?

End of argument.

Oshova

Boris the Blade

What part of "have" is not the same as "use" do you find so difficult?

Vehicles near Stormcaller HAVE A COVER SAVE. I accept this. We ALL accept this. Noone denies this, therefore your entire argument that we are denying this is false. OK?

This cover save works againdst WOUNDS ONLY, as the cover save rules state this. Again, this is not debateable - please read page 20/21. PLEASE actually read this.,

Got that? So, now what is the ONLY way you are given PERMISSION to use a save against HITS? Page 62. What is the prerequisite for USING the save? Being obscured.

For the last time bvefore you are reported for trolling: Having a save is not the same as having permission to use the save against Hits. Answer THIS argument or concede defeat.

Meh.

This has been done to death before.

The rules on page 62 point out exceptions to the normal cover rules, and represent the "normal" way a vehicle receives cover.
Those exceptions are:
50% of facing needs to be hidden.
Area terrain does not obscure vehicles.
Vehicles cannot go to ground.

The use of the term 'obscured' refers to a vehicles ability to claim to be in cover

"At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle... needs to be hidden... for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured."

That's it. If a vehicle can claim to be "in cover" it is obscured.

What defines if something is "in cover" ?

"...units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw." (p21)

So, if a model has a cover saving throw, it is in or behind cover.

If a vehicle has a cover saving throw, it is in or behind cover. If a vehicle is in or behind cover, it is obscured.

kartofelkopf wrote:Meh.

This has been done to death before.

The rules on page 62 point out exceptions to the normal cover rules, and represent the "normal" way a vehicle receives cover.
Those exceptions are:
50% of facing needs to be hidden.
Area terrain does not obscure vehicles.
Vehicles cannot go to ground.

The use of the term 'obscured' refers to a vehicles ability to claim to be in cover

"At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle... needs to be hidden... for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured."

That's it. If a vehicle can claim to be "in cover" it is obscured.

What defines if something is "in cover" ?

"...units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw." (p21)

So, if a model has a cover saving throw, it is in or behind cover.

If a vehicle has a cover saving throw, it is in or behind cover. If a vehicle is in or behind cover, it is obscured.

There are so many incorrect or unsupported leaps here that I'm not even sure where to start.

Pointing out the glaring logical fallacy at the end (Units in cover get a cover save, therefore all units with a cover save must be in cover) will have to suffice for now....

Or the part where you claim obscured must refer to being 'in cover', despite it referring to the 50% requirement (as implied by the sentence structure and as clarified by the next bullet point "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence.")...

Or... you know what, it's not worth it. You're wrong, by clear RAW, just stop.

Interesting as "Obscured status" is a special condition that allows a vehicle to roll a corrosponding save against glancing or penetrating hits.

Otherwise being in area terrain would allow a vehicle to take a cover save as the arae terrain would still confer a save despite the vehicle not fitting the status of obsured.

Also interesting that anytime a vehicle is meant to be endowed with a cover save it specifically mentiong 'is obscured' 'counts as obscured' if fact in the case of KFF this save conferred is even better than the one given to infantry.

Well this looks like its going no where...


The way I see it you are either in the RAW group, and you say Bjorn can't use his invuln and cover saves without 50% hidden are useless.


Or


You are in the RAI group and glancing / Pen are synonymous with wound. Bjorn's inv and storm caller / Sanguine thing works on vehicles.



No group is going to give so why not make a poll to see how the majority play and call it a day.

Gorkamorka wrote:


Pointing out the glaring logical fallacy at the end (Units in cover get a cover save, therefore all units with a cover save must be in cover) will have to suffice for now.

Or the part where you claim obscured must refer to being 'in cover', despite it referring to the 50% requirement as clarified by the next bullet point.

Then what defines a unit as being in cover?

The only time, in the entire rulebook, a unit is referred to as being in cover, is in regards to receiving a cover save.

I assume you think that's a tautology, but I think it's just a reflexive statement. If a unit is in cover, it has a cover save. If a unit has a cover save, it is in cover.

If this is incorrect, please direct us, in the BRB, to the page where it defines when a unit is in cover differently.

ChrisCP

The bullet point I quoted specifically prohibits that. In any event, the rules on p62 are the NORMAL rules for vehicle getting cover saves, just as the rules on 21 are the NORMAL rules for infantry receiving cover saves. Clearly, a psychic power is beyond the scope of the NORMAL rules for receiving a cover save.

And, as much as the "RAW" purists complained about strawmen earlier, they love to bring up the KFF, an upgrade from the previous edition when vehicles never took cover saves. It needed to specify the difference as it was meant to be 4e and 5e compatible.

Clthomps wrote:Well this looks like its going no where...


The way I see it you are either in the RAW group, and you say Bjorn can't use his invuln and cover saves without 50% hidden are useless.

Oh hey, a poisoning the well logical fallacy.

Why can't I be in the 'RAW group, which has a better claim to the RAI in this case as the rules to handle this situation are basic and clearly laid out, work perfectly fine, have not been clarified further by GW, and several examples that prove the point exist'?

Because to make an unbiased poll would be very dificult, as there is so much evidence for the "Is said vehicle conferred obscured status, either through wargear or coveraged by area terrain from the POV of firer > If yes permission to use cover save granted > If no then no" And to present the other side of the argument would involve ingnoreing swathes of text.

Gorkamorka wrote:
Or the part where you claim obscured must refer to being 'in cover', despite it referring to the 50% requirement as clarified by the next bullet point.

Actually, just quoting the rules. It specifies that 50% of the vehicle needs to be hidden in order to claim to be in cover, which is called obscurement. Psychic powers under discussion skip the NORMAL cover step and allows a unit to claim to be in cover, even if it is not hidden (this is true for infantry and for vehicles).

kartofelkopf wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
Or the part where you claim obscured must refer to being 'in cover', despite it referring to the 50% requirement as clarified by the next bullet point.

Actually, just quoting the rules. It specifies that 50% of the vehicle needs to be hidden in order to claim to be in cover, which is called obscurement. Psychic powers under discussion skip the NORMAL cover step and allows a unit to claim to be in cover, even if it is not hidden (this is true for infantry and for vehicles).

Except that they do not provide the unit with the ability to claim to be in cover. They provide only a cover saving throw, which just happens to be a result of being in cover.
Having a cover save and actually being in cover are not the same thing. Being in cover provides a cover saving throw, a cover saving throw does not provide being in cover.

Gorkamorka wrote:
Having a cover save and actually being in cover are not the same thing.

So you keep saying....

Please, quote the text from the BRB that defines when a unit is in cover. The only definition I've found that defines when a unit is in cover is on page 21.

"...units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw."

As it stands, the only way to know if a unit is "in cover" is if it has a cover saving throw.

The only way a vehicle can count as obscured is if it can "claim to be in cover." Usually, this means being 50% hidden by terrain or intervening models. But, if the only defining characteristic of "being in cover" is "having a cover saving throw" then ANY time a vehicle HAS a saving throw, it is, by definition, also obscured.

Like I said, please, if there's a definition in the book of when a unit is in cover, present it. I'd love to have a more formal definition than the one presented.

kartofelkopf wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
Having a cover save and actually being in cover are not the same thing.

So you keep saying....

Please, quote the text from the BRB that defines when a unit is in cover. The only definition I've found that defines when a unit is in cover is on page 21.

"...units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw."

As it stands, the only way to know if a unit is "in cover" is if it has a cover saving throw.

And, as I've pointed out multiple times, that sentence does not say that a cover saving throw is the same as being in cover. It does not say that units with a cover saving throw are always in cover. It says that units that are in cover receive a cover saving throw.
This quote you keep quoting lends absolutely no credence to your strange claim.

Being 'in cover' is a well defined game term with several paragraphs of definition and exceptions. The claim that the only way to tell if a unit is in cover is to check its saving throw... when normally in order to know if it gains that saving throw you have to determine whether the unit is in cover using the rules for being in cover first... is absolutely ludicrous and borderline trolling. The claim that gaining a cover saving throw brings with it the benefit of being obscured, which is equally unsupported in the ruleset, is equally ludicrous.

Having a cover saving throw, another defined game term, in this case is either a result of the condition or a part of the condition... it by definition cannot be the same as the condition itself and is never defined as being the same anywhere in the ruleset.

kartofelkopf wrote:
And, as much as the "RAW" purists complained about strawmen earlier, they love to bring up the KFF, an upgrade from the previous edition when vehicles never took cover saves. It needed to specify the difference as it was meant to be 4e and 5e compatible.

Man... I really wish there was a 5th ed equivilent right in the BRB that has also been mentioned. If only it was given as an example right there on the same page as the obscured vehicle rules.
Too bad smoke launchers don't exist, or my point would have a perfect example that blew a hole right through your argument, right?

Oh please

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...

Being "in cover" is purely functional in all its uses in the BRB. P21 defines a unit as in cover when it is claiming a cover save, and goes on to define types of cover PURELY in terms of the save they grant.

Also, watch it with the claims of trolling. I keep quoting the BRB... you keep repeating the same claims with no citations. One of these is the directed manner in which a YMDC discussion is supposed to proceed. (PROTIP: it's the debate method I'm using)

Oh please again see above your post, and you keep missing the point that, infantry are given permission to use cover saves agains shooting attack, for example they are explictyly forbidden to use them against a sweeping advance (probably in case so sneaky bugged said 'but you're shooting them in the back as they run')

And a vehicle is told they may only take a cover save ('take a cover save' as in pick up the die and try to roll = or higher than said value') if they are obscured, either through wargear "but will
count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting
phase, receiving a 4+ cover save." or blocking of LOS


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haha wait what your using a 'Protip' method of debate? That's new

kartofelkopf wrote:
Also, watch it with the claims of trolling. I keep quoting the BRB... you keep repeating the same claims with no citations. One of these is the directed manner in which a YMDC discussion is supposed to proceed. (PROTIP: it's the debate method I'm using)

I wasn't aware "Quote rules and then repeatedly insist upon claims that they don't support" was debating, and wasn't trolling.

Seriously.
If A, then B
thus
If B, then A
Is so basically logically flawed that I cannot believe it forms the entire basis of your argument.

My bad, I guess. I'll bow out and let other people tell you you're wrong in the morning.

ChrisCP wrote:Oh please again see above your post, and you keep missing the point that, infantry are given permission to use cover saves agains shooting attack...
snip
And a vehicle is told they may only take a cover save ('take a cover save' as in pick up the die and try to roll = or higher than said value') if they are obscured, either through wargear "but will
count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting
phase, receiving a 4+ cover save." or blocking of LOS

Well, what the rules ACTUALLY say, is that if a vehicle "claim[s] to be in cover . . . the vehicle is said to be obscured."

Obscured is solely defined as being able to claim a cover save. NORMALLY, this requires 50% of the vehicle to be hidden from a firer's LOS. But, if a vehicle is given a cover save, it can claim to be in cover, and "the vehicle is said to be obscured."

So, let's go down the steps.

1) 50% of a vehicles facing is hidden
2) the vehicle claims to be in cover ("the vehicle is said to be obscured")
3) if the vehicle suffers a Pen or Glance, it may take a cover save

Those are the NORMAL rules for a vehicle in cover.

A psychic power grants a cover save outright... skipping step 1. Going to step 2, we see that, if a vehicle can claim to be in cover, it is obscured. Ergo, step 3-- it takes a cover save.

Mmm he just keeps missing the heart.
Can see playing against this frame of mind going like this, "okay so that's 2 glancing and 3 pen."
"Fine."
"Okay rolling on the damage table, okay if I use black die for pen and do them all at once?" (That's actually a pet peeve of mine)
"Fine."
".. 2 weapon destroyed, 3 wrecked and 1 immbilised"
"Okay I'll take my cover saves"
"Wait what?"
"Cover saves"
"Okay... Firstly) Why are you obscured?"
"Doesn't matter I have a 5+"
"But when did you get permission to take that save?"
"Huh?... I don't need it..."
"Okay but what about the line in the rule book that says 'If the target is obscured'."
"Doesn't matter I have a 5+"
"Well to prevent myself being tar-pitted by this argument I'll direct your attention to the fact that you must that saves for glance and pen before I roll on the damage table."
"Huh?...Wait...What? What are you trying to pull Mr. TFG?"