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.

notredameguy10 wrote:
Let me try to explain this again:

1.) Models IN ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured
2.) "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

Models in ruins are CONSIDERED OBSCURED no matter if only 1% is actually obscured instead of the normal 25%
Vehicles are not considered obscured for just being in ruins (1%-24%) but need to actually have 25% obscured.

I find it hilarious you believe ruins give a 4+ cover save, but don't actually obscure the target in any way

Cool I need a rules quote to back up the underlined.

*sigh* if you can't understand simple rules idk what to tell you. I have more important things to do with my life (like attend medical school) than sit and argue with someone who clearly doesn't want to listen to a anyone but himself. Good luck with finding anyone to play against and have fun never playing in any tournaments anywhere.

You also keep failing, for a 5th time, to address "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence." Why would they put that all by itself if it doesn't mean vehicles cannot get a cover save when in ruins/woods

Oh btw, take a look at the picture example of the rhino in ruins in the BRB. It specifically shows a rhino, with a little bit in ruins, and that it does not get a cover save

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So vehicles don't get cover the way normal models do due to size. It then explains what that means. It means they are not obscured (and thus get no obscured dependent cover) unless they are 25% covered by terrain. However Jink or ruins or the terrain datasheets for example don't care about obscured they grant cover not dependent on obscured status. As the ruins quote proves. So why would a vehicle not get a cover save for being in ruins? I can see that it wouldn't be obscured the rules are clear on that. Now do you have anything that stops it having a cover save?

Yes this stops it from getting a cover save:

" Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

Which part of that? I don't see cover saves mentioned at all in your quote. Are you saying Jink doesn't work for vehicles?

The part about "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain" and "The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

if a vehicle is in terrain, the 25% rule takes precedence. so they do not get a cover save from the terrain that they are in unless they are 25% Obscured.

Why wouldn't Jink work for vehicles? I did not mention Jink.

notredameguy10 wrote:
*sigh* if you can't understand simple rules idk what to tell you. I have more important things to do with my life (like attend medical school) than sit and argue with someone who clearly doesn't want to listen to a anyone but himself. Good luck with finding anyone to play against and have fun never playing in any tournaments anywhere.

I assume this is an attempt to deflect the fact that you have no rules to support your position? You quoted a rule then made a statement in exact opposition to that rule I just asked you to support that statement.

I never struggle to find opponents nor tournaments. Every tournament I've been too has a massive list of houserules it is not uncommon.

Good luck in medical school. Hope you are better at that than you are understanding plan English.

Ill post this picture again Ahole

notredameguy10 wrote:
*sigh* if you can't understand simple rules idk what to tell you. I have more important things to do with my life (like attend medical school) than sit and argue with someone who clearly doesn't want to listen to a anyone but himself. Good luck with finding anyone to play against and have fun never playing in any tournaments anywhere.

You also keep failing, for a 5th time, to address "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence." Why would they put that all by itself if it doesn't mean vehicles cannot get a cover save when in ruins/woods

Actually he can understand simple rules.

Model is in a ruin. Model is not obscured. Model receives a cover save for simply being in the ruin.

If the rules said something along the lines of "Models in a ruin are treated as being obscured." then, the rules for vehicles would actually do something. However, it appears that the inclusion of that rule is simply a copy/paste from previous editions (wouldn't be the first time).

Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

No, that means it does not get a cover save for being obscured by the ruin. Models can get cover saves from ruins in two different methods: Being obscured, or being in. That picture says Rhino is not obscured. Therefore it does not qualify for the cover save granted by being obscured. Nowhere in that picture does it say the Rhino does not get a cover save. It simply says the Rhino is not obscured.

The rules do not say that vehicles have to be 25% obscured to get cover from terrain. It says that have to be 25% obscured to be obscured. Terrain can grant cover saves without model being obscured.

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says "hidden by intervening terrain"

Therefore, even if in ruins, if 25% of the vehicle is not "hidden by intervening terrain" then it is not "in cover"

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

those are not terrain dependent rules. They say nothing about being "in cover". They say you get a cover save.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

those are not terrain dependent rules

According you, a vehicle must be 25% obscured in the targeted facing to get a cover save. Therefore, if a vehicle Jinks, it is still not 25% obscured in the targeted facing and is not in cover.

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

those are not terrain dependent rules

According you, a vehicle must be 25% obscured in the targeted facing to get a cover save. Therefore, if a vehicle Jinks, it is still not 25% obscured in the targeted facing and is not in cover.

Changing my words again. I said

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says "hidden by intervening terrain"

Therefore, even if in ruins, if 25% of the vehicle is not "hidden by intervening terrain" then it is not "in cover"

IN COVER

Jink, stealth, shrouded say nothing about being in cover. You get a cover save. Ruins on the other hand you have to be "in ruins/cover"

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

Two things firstly no one has stated the Rhino is obscured, so it not being obscured disagrees with literally no ones argument so I have no idea why you think that matters?

Secondly the picture doesn't show us whether the Rhino is in the ruin or not and the caption makes no reference to whether the Rhino gets a cover save. So again the relevance of that pic is entirely lost on me.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

Two things firstly no one has stated the Rhino is obscured, so it not being obscured disagrees with literally no ones argument so I have no idea why you think that matters?

Secondly the picture doesn't show us whether the Rhino is in the ruin or not and the caption makes no reference to whether the Rhino gets a cover save. So again the relevance of that pic is entirely lost on me.

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

those are not terrain dependent rules

According you, a vehicle must be 25% obscured in the targeted facing to get a cover save. Therefore, if a vehicle Jinks, it is still not 25% obscured in the targeted facing and is not in cover.

Changing my words again. I said

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says "hidden by intervening terrain"

Therefore, even if in ruins, if 25% of the vehicle is not "hidden by intervening terrain" then it is not "in cover"

IN COVER

Jink, stealth, shrouded say nothing about being in cover. You get a cover save. Ruins on the other hand you have to be "in ruins/cover"

Again resorting to lies. Where do the ruins rules make ANY reference to being "in cover"?

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says that "hidden by intervening terrain"

So Jink, Stealth and Shrouded don't work for vehicles?

those are not terrain dependent rules

According you, a vehicle must be 25% obscured in the targeted facing to get a cover save. Therefore, if a vehicle Jinks, it is still not 25% obscured in the targeted facing and is not in cover.

Changing my words again. I said

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

That says NOTHING about being "obscured"

So even if ruins say that a model doesn't have be "obscured", the rules for vehicle cover specifically says "hidden by intervening terrain"

Therefore, even if in ruins, if 25% of the vehicle is not "hidden by intervening terrain" then it is not "in cover"

IN COVER

Jink, stealth, shrouded say nothing about being in cover. You get a cover save. Ruins on the other hand you have to be "in ruins/cover"

Again resorting to lies. Where do the ruins rules make ANY reference to being "in cover"?

hahahahahaahha

now you are trying to say being in ruins is not being in cover. Really think about that for a second.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

Two things firstly no one has stated the Rhino is obscured, so it not being obscured disagrees with literally no ones argument so I have no idea why you think that matters?

Secondly the picture doesn't show us whether the Rhino is in the ruin or not and the caption makes no reference to whether the Rhino gets a cover save. So again the relevance of that pic is entirely lost on me.

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

Why does being in cover matter?

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Take a look at the picture I posted from the BRB and then try to come back and tell me you are right

I've looked at the picture. The Rhino is not obscured. No argument. However, it is still in ruins and still qualifies for the "being in ruin cover save". It does not qualify for the "obscured by ruin cover save".

In fact, if you were to replace the Rhino with a Wraithknight, you would have "Less than 25% of the Eldar Wraithknight is hidden by the ruin - the Wraithknight is not obscured.

That is a ridiculous argument. They literally have a picture in the BRB showing it is not 25% obscured by ruins. That means it gets no cover save, otherwise there would be no need for the picture at all. Just like there would be no need for the quote Ive been posting.

The difference is it specifically says vehicles have different cover rules than infantry/MC/etc... It specifically says they are required to have 25% obscured to get cover from terrain.

Two things firstly no one has stated the Rhino is obscured, so it not being obscured disagrees with literally no ones argument so I have no idea why you think that matters?

Secondly the picture doesn't show us whether the Rhino is in the ruin or not and the caption makes no reference to whether the Rhino gets a cover save. So again the relevance of that pic is entirely lost on me.

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

Why does being in cover matter?

Why does being in cover matter? Because the rules for vehicles say if you are not in cover you do not get a cover save.

I honestly cannot tell if you are just trolling or you are really being that dense

hahahahahaahha 

now you are trying to say being in ruins is not being in cover. Really think about that for a second.

You know I'm just saying what the rules say right? Rather than raking rules terms like "in cover" and saying they apply to rules that never mention that term.

 FlingitNow wrote:

hahahahahaahha 

now you are trying to say being in ruins is not being in cover. Really think about that for a second.

You know I'm just saying what the rules say right? Rather than raking rules terms like "in cover" and saying they apply to rules that never mention that term.

The facts are that (all directly from BRB):

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry due to their sheer size and bulk..."

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence"

There is a picture example show a vehicles in ruins saying it is not obscured as it is less than 25% covered

That is all the evidence you need.

Why does being in cover matter? Because the rules for vehicles say if you are not in cover you do not get a cover save.

So answer these questions:

1) Are you sure vehicles can not get a cover save unless they are "in cover"?
2) is a jinking vehicle "in cover"?
3) where does it state a vehicle can not get a cover save if not "in cover"?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602616.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/636409.page
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?395142-Ruins-Cover-save
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/500624.page

The list goes on. Every time the consensus is I am right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Why does being in cover matter? Because the rules for vehicles say if you are not in cover you do not get a cover save.

So answer these questions:

1) Are you sure vehicles can not get a cover save unless they are "in cover"?
2) is a jinking vehicle "in cover"?
3) where does it state a vehicle can not get a cover save if not "in cover"?

1.) For terrain purposes, correct
2.) Jinking is completely different
3.) lol now you make me laugh. "Oh my infantry isn't actually in cover, but he get a cover save from terrain!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
5 More all agreeing with me

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660649.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606785.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/516577.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/625541.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/600659.page

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

hahahahahaahha 

now you are trying to say being in ruins is not being in cover. Really think about that for a second.

You know I'm just saying what the rules say right? Rather than raking rules terms like "in cover" and saying they apply to rules that never mention that term.

The facts are that (all directly from BRB):

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry due to their sheer size and bulk..."

"at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover"

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence"

There is a picture example show a vehicles in ruins saying it is not obscured as it is less than 25% covered

That is all the evidence you need.

So we have a quote saying Vehicles are different from infantry.

We have a quote about how they get to be in cover and how that is dependent on obscured.

Then we have a quote saying that to be obscured they must be 25%obscured.

What you've not posted is the ruins rules and what you've consistently failed to do is show a link between these rules and the cover save provided by ruins.

I am just going to keep posting all of these topics on this discussion until you stop. I advise you to spend a little time on them.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660649.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606785.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/516577.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/625541.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/600659.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602616.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/636409.page
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?395142-Ruins-Cover-save
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/500624.page

1.) For terrain purposes, correct 
2.) Jinking is completely different 
3.) lol now you make me laugh. "Oh my infantry isn't actually in cover, but he get a cover save from terrain!"

Argument by popularity aside (following that method it is RaW to not always measure when you move and move 6.5"+ with horde armies because that is what happens on tables all over the world).

So you've changed your stance on 1 already. Why is Jink completely different? What is different about it?

So on 3 you again go back to the claim that you don't have to support your stance with rules. So are you actually going to support your stance or are you going to continue with the personal attacks and broad sweeping claims that have no basis in the rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I assume this is you conceding?

You are wrong. Get over it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660649.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606785.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/516577.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/625541.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/600659.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602616.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/636409.page
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?395142-Ruins-Cover-save
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/500624.page

Do you have an actual rule argument, or just "You're wrong."?