Jump to content

Shield of Sanguinius/Vehicles


T0RMENT0

Recommended Posts

First of all excuseme for my bad english

 

Here is my question: The power shield of anguineus says "all UNITS within 6 inches of the librarian recieve a 5+ cover save" . Is that cover save applicable to vehicles ?

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all excuseme for my bad english

 

Here is my question: The power shield of anguineus says "all UNITS within 6 inches of the librarian recieve a 5+ cover save" . Is that cover save applicable to vehicles ?

 

Thank you.

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all excuseme for my bad english

 

Here is my question: The power shield of anguineus says "all UNITS within 6 inches of the librarian recieve a 5+ cover save" . Is that cover save applicable to vehicles ?

 

Thank you.

 

Yes.

 

Iv'e seen this argued on other forums alot, I dont think it is quite so clear for vehicles because in the rulebook it says the vehicle has to be obscured to received a cover save and the power doesnt 'obscure' it, just provides a straight cover save- so only affects infantry.

 

I'm still 50/50 on if it actually affects vehicles at all because of the wording of cover saves affecting vehicles in the rulebook.

 

Im just not sure, i think it will be one of the things in the errata they put out for the codex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all excuseme for my bad english

 

Here is my question: The power shield of anguineus says "all UNITS within 6 inches of the librarian recieve a 5+ cover save" . Is that cover save applicable to vehicles ?

 

Thank you.

 

Yes.

 

Iv'e seen this argued on other forums alot, I dont think it is quite so clear for vehicles because in the rulebook it says the vehicle has to be obscured to received a cover save and the power doesnt 'obscure' it, just provides a straight cover save- so only affects infantry.

 

I'm still 50/50 on if it actually affects vehicles at all because of the wording of cover saves affecting vehicles in the rulebook.

 

Im just not sure, i think it will be one of the things in the errata they put out for the codex.

What about the SW's Storm Caller? What does the FAQ say about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what is says in the SW codex, i havent even read the codex, let alone the faq because I dont play SW but you do dont you? All I am saying is that i personally dont know if it gives vehicles the save or not, im still undecided, and it is also a big talking point on other forums such as warseer.

 

vehicles only get a cover save if more then 50% of it is obscured right? My point was that the power doesnt state that it obsucres vehicles just that it provides a cover save, so i think it is a grey area.

 

But i think that both sides have a case. GW will most probably put it into the FAQ (well i hope so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what is says in the SW codex, i havent even read the codex, let alone the faq because I dont play SW but you do dont you? All I am saying is that i personally dont know if it gives vehicles the save or not, im still undecided, and it is also a big talking point on other forums such as warseer.

 

vehicles only get a cover save if more then 50% of it is obscured right? My point was that the power doesnt state that it obsucres vehicles just that it provides a cover save, so i think it is a grey area.

 

But i think that both sides have a case. GW will most probably put it into the FAQ (well i hope so).

 

Yeah I do, but I don't remember the exact wording for it (don't have the book).

 

If the wording for Shield of Sanguinius is "unit" then I'd say the vehicle gets cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that the power doesnt state that it obsucres vehicles just that it provides a cover save, so i think it is a grey area.

 

As grey as smoke launchers... They dont obscure the vehicle and yet provide a cover save. The power works on vehicles it the power states "unit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Ork players have been taking a cover save from a Big Mek for years. Why would it be different for us?

 

Because the KFF specifically grants obscured status to vehicles. Most people will argue that without obscured status, you do not have permission to take cover saves against glancing or penetrating hits. You can take cover saves against wounds but since vehicles don't take wounds it is irrelevant. Just search around on other forums for kff threads..there are a lot of very long discussions on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ork players have been taking a cover save from a Big Mek for years. Why would it be different for us?

 

Because the KFF specifically grants obscured status to vehicles. Most people will argue that without obscured status, you do not have permission to take cover saves against glancing or penetrating hits. You can take cover saves against wounds but since vehicles don't take wounds it is irrelevant. Just search around on other forums for kff threads..there are a lot of very long discussions on the matter.

 

Sorien- while im aware of various debates regarding KFF - (ie: 4+ vs. 5+ ) ive not heard of the inference youre making regarding the necessity for being classed as "obscured" to claim a cover save.

 

There is a line which can be interpreted as that to some degree: "If a special rule or piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured..., this is a 4+ cover save".

 

However there is nothing to suggest that being classed as "obscured" is a prerequisite of taking a save. The Codex rule is enough to grant us this.

 

 

EDIT: Sorien, to your credit- I did a few more read throughs. I can see where people are getting this from. Theres a line that says "if the target is obscured and suffers....it may take a cover save against it". People, i assume argue that since it doesnt grant "obscured" you dont get the cover.

 

However,all of this is inconsequential as the codex (which overrules the BRB) very clearly states what happens. If a unit is within 6" it receives a cover save. Theres nothing that pg62 can do to negate that rule. Is the vehicles a unit? Yes? Is the vehicle within 6" ? Yes? The end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just thought I'd chime in with this as I've noticed a few army lists relying on this interpretation which isn't legal or friendly to your opponent with a proper understanding of the rules.

 

 

It may be an element of hopefulness to make Shield of Sanguinius better than it is, but vehicles, unlike infantry when saving wounds, have never, going back to at least 3rd been able to use any type of cover save rule to ignore glancing or penetrating hit rolls on them apart from what is specifically laid out in the rulebook for the 4+ save granted by obscurement/obscured status on page 62.

 

 

Wargear and special rules like Tau Disruption Pods, Smoke Launchers, Ork Kustom Force field, or Skimmers moving flat out always specifically grant this special obscured status to vehicles, as referenced on page 62.

 

Shield of Sanguinius unfortunately doesn't additionally grant obscurement to vehicles along with the 5+ cover save non-vehicle models can use against wounds.

 

As an aside it's nice to finally register on B&C community after playing Necrons and Eldar, I've just started a brand new Blood Angels army, lost my first game, but loving the new codex and SM so far!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd chime in with this as I've noticed a few army lists relying on this interpretation which isn't legal or friendly to your opponent with a proper understanding of the rules.

 

 

It may be an element of hopefulness to make Shield of Sanguinius better than it is, but vehicles, unlike infantry when saving wounds, have never, going back to at least 3rd been able to use any type of cover save rule to ignore glancing or penetrating hit rolls on them apart from what is specifically laid out in the rulebook for the 4+ save granted by obscurement/obscured status on page 62.

 

 

Wargear and special rules like Tau Disruption Pods, Smoke Launchers, Ork Kustom Force field, or Skimmers moving flat out always specifically grant this special obscured status to vehicles, as referenced on page 62.

 

Shield of Sanguinius unfortunately doesn't additionally grant obscurement to vehicles along with the 5+ cover save non-vehicle models can use against wounds.

 

As an aside it's nice to finally register on B&C community after playing Necrons and Eldar, I've just started a brand new Blood Angels army, lost my first game, but loving the new codex and SM so far!

 

This power states:

 

"..any units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save until the end of the phase." (BA pg. 63) There is no mention of save vs. wounds.

 

 

The BRB then outlines various cases and circumstances in which it may take cover saves. It (as you mentioned) specifically references being obscured as a condition for being able to "take a cover save against it(glance/pens) exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound". (BRB pg 62)

 

 

However as per usual - the codex takes precedent over the rule book.

 

Additionally the exceptions listed are the exceptions for "normal cover rules" (pg62).

 

This is a codex specific rule.

 

Unless you can argue how a codex specific rule that grants an existing ability(taking cover saves - as mentioned above) to a pre-defined game piece (unit) then I'm afraid that interpretation is wrong.

 

Edit: In essence, being "obscured" is not a prerequisite to gain a cover save according to the rules in the BA codex. Which are the most recent rules that we must follow for that power!

 

Edit2: Its like the BRB saying you cannot charge after you shoot a rapid fire weapon and then the codex saying, this psychic power allows you to charge after firing a boltgun. And then arguing that since the BRB said you cant do that- its illegal. Sorry. No. Two clearly defined items - completely self-contained. Completely legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some comments on the debates so far.

 

1. Dead Man's Hand

 

This is not just a rule, it is a piece of wargear. The wording includes the phrase "The Dead Man's Hand also includes a set of digital lasers ..." so it is certainly a physical piece of wargear and not just a special rule. You could try and argue that this piece of wargear does not also count as a close combat weapon but it is certainly incorrect to imply that it is just a rule that applies to Tycho. It is listed under wargear on his army list entry (not under special rules).

 

So we know it is a gauntlet, incorporating digital lasers, that basically makes Tycho's attacks power weapon attacks. I would say anyone trying to argue that that does not count as a close combat weapon is being pedantic to the point of idiocy. You would be, literally, trying to argue that Tycho fights with one hand behind his back.

 

2. Shield of Sanguinius

 

The problem with the obscured reference is the exact same wording is used in the normal infantry cover saves rules, On page 21 of the rulebook "When are models in cover? When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer the target model is in cover". This is the infantry rule. So the logical extension of the argument would be that since the power doesn't say it obscures the infantry then they can not benefit from the cover save either which is patently ridiculous. What is sheltering the BAs then? The giant golden barrier that the Librarian conjured. The reason it doesn't need to state that it confers obscured status is that the description clearly says that the power conjurs a physical barrier. The mekboy force field specifically confers obscured status because a force field would not block line of sight. A physical golden barrier however would. If your opponent asks what is obscuring the models it is there in the psychic power description itself - they are hiding behind the shimmering golden barrier the librarian conjured. Do people really need an actual model of the golden barrier to be placed on the table before they can understand how it would provide shelter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No GW publication states "Codexes trump BRB", so that is simply incorrect.

 

40k is a permissive ruleset, and specific exceptions will trump general rules. Codexes often have a lot of specific rules pertaining to unique units and so play will be different to the BRB, but this is (nearly) always clearly spelt out as a change or exception to the BRB rules, which can be referred to for clarity on the exception.

 

Your argument states that

 

"any units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save until the end of the phase"

"A vehicle is a unit"

therefore vehicles have a cover save

 

Is technically correct, but ignores almost everything else written about cover saves and vehicles in the BRB up to page 62. You're specifically ignoring what the BRB states cover IS, how cover saves are used against wounds (not hits on vehicles) and the text that excepts vehicles from using cover saves, unless obscured status is conferred on them by terrain or wargear.

 

Please note that "having" and "using" something are two different things. If I accept your argument that the vehicle has a cover save, there aren't any rules that define that or state how a vehicle uses a cover save in the Blood Angel codex, hence we refer to the BRB from page 56 onwards (The vehicle section).

 

The first sentence of The Rules Section: Vehicles importantly states "Because vehicles to not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood, their rules differ from other models in a number of ways, detailed here"

 

This indicates the rules for vehicles differ in a number of ways to the previous text of the BRB, which includes the explanation of cover saves against wounding hits contained in The Rules section: The Shooting Phase

 

Page 62 under "vehicles and cover - obscured targets" then states

 

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry"

 

I won't insult your intelligence by quoting the the whole of page 62, and also the Smoke Launchers Box, but it goes on to explain the special "obscured targets" concept for vehicles. "Obscured" is the only way a vehicle is allowed to take a cover save" exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound" (quote).

 

Shield of Sanguinius does not confer the obscured status to vehicles, therefore a vehicle has no benefit from shield of Sanguinius confering a 5+ cover save on it as "Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry" (quote)

 

I hope if you take the time to read the relevant sections it will be clearer :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No GW publication states "Codexes trump BRB", so that is simply incorrect.

 

Not according to these two ->

DA FAQ ->

 

There are a number of cases where things with the same name have different rules or characteristics in Codex Space Marines and Codex: Dark Angels, such as the different transport capacity for the Land Raider. There are also a number of new items of equipment in the Space Marines Codex that are not this one. Which version of the rules should I use, the latest version, or the one in Codex: Dark Angels?

 

A. Strictly, you should always use the rules from your own Codex, and this is the default solution you must use if you and your opponent can’t come up with a better one (you’ll find that this might be the case in tournaments, for example!). 40k is a permissive ruleset, and specific exceptions will trump general rules. Codexes often have a lot of specific rules pertaining to unique units and so play will be different to the BRB, but this is (nearly) always clearly spelt out as a change or exception to the BRB rules, which can be referred to for clarity on the exception.

 

 

Main Rulebook FAQ-

 

Q. My Imperial Guard or Black Templar Codex says that dedicated transports can only be used by the unit they’ve been bought for. Is that overruled by the new way dedicated transports work in 5th Edition?

 

A. No, if a Codex clearly says that dedicated transports can only be used during the game by the unit that bought them, that overrules the general rule in the rulebook, as normal.

Obviously some armies are stricter than others about transport regulations!

 

 

 

Your argument states that

 

"any units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save until the end of the phase"

"A vehicle is a unit"

therefore vehicles have a cover save

 

Is technically correct,

 

Then why is their still an argument here? If its technically correct - it is by the reading of the rules, correct.

 

 

...but ignores almost everything else written about cover saves and vehicles in the BRB up to page 62.

 

 

Yes! Yes it does. Because it doesnt need to take it into consideration. (As we pointed out above). Its entirely self contained.

 

 

You're specifically ignoring what the BRB states cover IS, how cover saves are used against wounds (not hits on vehicles) and the text that excepts vehicles from using cover saves, unless obscured status is conferred on them by terrain or wargear.

Again - yes I am. Because we've been provided with an enclosed rule that works by itself.

Even applying occams razor in this situation gets us to a favourable answer. The amount of wordy, rulesmithy, interpretation of various wordings one NEEDs to do to get to the conclusion you're toting is WELL beyond the scope of a little sentence that says anything in 6" gets a 5+. Its the terminators dont get termy armour argument frankly.

 

Please note that "having" and "using" something are two different things. If I accept your argument that the vehicle has a cover save, there aren't any rules that define that or state how a vehicle uses a cover save in the Blood Angel codex, hence we refer to the BRB from page 56 onwards (The vehicle section).

As you will note I highlighted and quoted a precedent of how "cover saves" work with vehicles above. Come on dude

 

The first sentence of The Rules Section: Vehicles importantly states "Because vehicles to not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood, their rules differ from other models in a number of ways, detailed here"

 

This indicates the rules for vehicles differ in a number of ways to the previous text of the BRB, which includes the explanation of cover saves against wounding hits contained in The Rules section: The Shooting Phase

 

Page 62 under "vehicles and cover - obscured targets" then states

 

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry"

 

I won't insult your intelligence by quoting the the whole of page 62, and also the Smoke Launchers Box, but it goes on to explain the special "obscured targets" concept for vehicles. "Obscured" is the only way a vehicle is allowed to take a cover save" exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound" (quote).

Let me get this straight, you're saying that a "cover save" (as you mentioned above) is able to be taken in certain conditions (obscured)?

 

You're right. As dictated by the main rule book -however in your argument as such you have proved two things.

One, that the BrB requires you have obscured status.

Two, that you are able to make a cover save.

By virtue of your own wording you have shown how, if a codex specific rule allows it, we can skip the prerequisites as outlined in the BRB for taking the saves. You have shown right there that a cover save can be taken. It matters not the conditions under which it can be taken, since the BA codex provides its own conditions.

 

Shield of Sanguinius does not confer the obscured status to vehicles, therefore a vehicle has no benefit from shield of Sanguinius confering a 5+ cover save on it as "Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry" (quote)

Thats a false statement based on faulty premises sadly.

 

I hope if you take the time to read the relevant sections it will be clearer :huh:

 

 

Ive read it mate. And I still think that in your own post you have acknowledged that its technically correct and now need to delve into complicated wording issues to attempt to explain and more so attempt to argue players out of an ability of why a simple rule giving a simple ability to a simple unit is not viable.

 

I think its odd dude. I think its poor form too. Not on your part per se, cause im sure there are other pundits online that push this and you are just a supporter of the current argument.

 

However,

I hope if you take the time to read the relevant sections it will be clearer :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mezkh is absolutely correct in his argument. The way the rules are worded is that a vehicle must have "obscured" status in order to have permission to use a cover save against glancing and penetrating hits.

 

Yes! Yes it does. Because it doesnt need to take it into consideration. (As we pointed out above). Its entirely self contained.

 

this statement is demonstrably false. A codex over rides the BRB *only* when there is a specific contradiction between the two. The black Templars dedicated transport is a great example of such a contradiction.

 

Just saying Shield gives vehicles a cover save does not in any way, shape or form over ride any rules in the main rule book regarding vehicle sand cover saves.

 

By virtue of your own wording you have shown how, if a codex specific rule allows it, we can skip the prerequisites as outlined in the BRB for taking the saves.

 

Again, this is simply false! The only exception is when there is VERY SPECIFIC wording that says otherwise. A good example of this is Snikrot, who's special rule allows the unit to come in from any table edge from reserve. This is a VERY SPECIFIC exception to the normal reserve rules that would otherwise require the unit to come in from the controlling player's table edge.

 

Please, please please read up on this. Look in the rules sections of any forum you like for discussions on Killa Kans and the KFF. Simply put, Shield of Sanguinius has no effect on vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mezkh is absolutely correct in his argument. The way the rules are worded is that a vehicle must have "obscured" status in order to have permission to use a cover save against glancing and penetrating hits.

 

Yes! Yes it does. Because it doesnt need to take it into consideration. (As we pointed out above). Its entirely self contained.

 

this statement is demonstrably false. A codex over rides the BRB *only* when there is a specific contradiction between the two. The black Templars dedicated transport is a great example of such a contradiction.

 

Just saying Shield gives vehicles a cover save does not in any way, shape or form over ride any rules in the main rule book regarding vehicle sand cover saves.

 

By virtue of your own wording you have shown how, if a codex specific rule allows it, we can skip the prerequisites as outlined in the BRB for taking the saves.

 

Again, this is simply false! The only exception is when there is VERY SPECIFIC wording that says otherwise. A good example of this is Snikrot, who's special rule allows the unit to come in from any table edge from reserve. This is a VERY SPECIFIC exception to the normal reserve rules that would otherwise require the unit to come in from the controlling player's table edge.

 

Please, please please read up on this. Look in the rules sections of any forum you like for discussions on Killa Kans and the KFF. Simply put, Shield of Sanguinius has no effect on vehicles.

 

The main rulebook requires non-vehicles to be at least partially obscurred to get a coversave. By this argument, shield does nothing as it doesn't obscure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't get into a big quote train as I find them rather rude, but to address this point:

 

Then why is their still an argument here? If its technically correct - it is by the reading of the rules, correct.

 

Because your simple argument proves they have a cover save - and the rules state the vehicle can't use it. Sorry I thought this was obvious.

 

Have is not the same as use.

 

The rules state, in a nutshell, that:

 

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry, and that to use a cover save, a vehicle must be obscured.

 

Does Shield of Sanguinius confer obscured status on vehicles? If not, then they can't make use of the cover save (which would be a 4+ under the rules if it did, refer page 62).

 

vehicles do not benefit from cover like other units do as is clearly explained in the BRB.

 

All the rules for cover are contained in the rulebook, not the codex. Shield of Sanguinius just states it confers a 5+ save to units, without the rulebook that is meaningless.

 

If we refer to the rulebook, it explains that covers saves can be made against wounds inflicted, that vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry, and that to use a cover save, a vehicle must be obscured.

 

It's that simple. I won't argue over this any further, so if anyone doesn't agree, we can wait (years? :) ) for the vindication of the FAQ.

 

For games of course I would recommend a conservative approach discuss with your opponent, if they are willing to allow your vehicles to make use of cover against hits, the same as with infantry against wounds, then by all means go ahead!

Tactically if you're running a vehicle heavy list and allowing 5+ vehicle cover saves off the librarian power it's a huge force multiplier and game changer, a no brainer power choice (this is also a big hint of an incorrect interpretation of the rules), so if I was facing the Blood angels army I probably wouldn't allow it myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main rulebook requires non-vehicles to be at least partially obscurred to get a coversave. By this argument, shield does nothing as it doesn't obscure.

 

Shield of Sanguinius specifically states that units DO get a cover save though, so this is an example of Codex overriding BRB with the specification that they gain the save (and saves can be used against wounds per the rules as normal)

 

Vehicles cannot make use of the cover save from Shield of Sanguinius, due to page 62

- Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry...

..the difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover...

explanation of the specific rules term "obscured"

...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...

...if a special rule or piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex.

 

And then the Smoke Launchers box gives a good example a written rule that specifically confers the special obscured status against vehicles. Being obscured is the only way they are allowed to make cover saves against hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last question for you then Mezkh ->

 

 

* In order to get option B, condition A must be met.

 

* Ability X gives us option B.

 

 

Why do I suddenly need to care as to what condition A is if ability X automatically grants option B ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't get into a big quote train as I find them rather rude, but to address this point:

 

Then why is their still an argument here? If its technically correct - it is by the reading of the rules, correct.

 

Because your simple argument proves they have a cover save - and the rules state the vehicle can't use it. Sorry I thought this was obvious.

 

Clearly its not - so try not to sound too condescending, yeah. You're relatively new, which means youve joined to talk about this point. We welcome the difference in opinion- as it will help get to the bottom of things one way or another, but try not to keep writing like you have been for the past few posts. Its neither humourous, helpful or nor respectful to someone thats engaging you and putting up with your posting.

 

The rules do not state you cannot use it, merely that you need to be obscured in order to do so.

The codex rule supercedes this prerequisite -as noted many times.

 

Your entire argument rests on one point. That you need to be obscured to take a cover save. Ive shown why this is not true. You say they cant use their cover save because a cover save is a product of being obscured. However, as mentioned many times - that doesnt matter as the BA codex rule allows you cut straight to the product and not worry about the prerequisite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.