Shield of Sanguinius/Vehicles

[Sorien]

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

 

No, no it simply does not. Not even close. Not in any way, shape or form does the statement "all units have a 5+ cover save" over ride any requirements or other rules in the main rule book.

 

The only way for the codex to over ride the obscured requirement is if it had very *specific* wording allowing to do so. Either that or simply granting obscured to vehicles, like the KFF does. But since it lacks both specific wording and obscured status, Shield of Sanguinius has no effect on vehicles.

[Mordekiem]

Hope not, I'm thinking the power might be quite good for my tac squads :P

 

But the power isn't useless for infantry. The Blood Angel codex unquestionably gives all units a cover save. The shooting phase section tells you how to use a cover save against wounds. The rulebook doesn't tell you how to use it against hits. Because we're playing a permissive ruleset, if we don't have permission or a 'how to' to make cover saves for vehicles, we can't!

Seriously? You don't know how to make a cover save for a tank? ;)

 

But the rules in the BRB say what conditions need to be present for an infantry model to get a cover save. They need to be "in or behind cover" (pg 21). In fact it is almost the same as the vehicle section. None of those conditions are present when the power is used so, by your logic, the infantry models don't get a cover save.

 

So if you are saying the codex overrides the BRB with infantry models why does it not work with vehicles? And why can infantry get a save other than by being in or behind cover but vehicles can't?

 

You are making no sense dude and the codex is about as crystal clear as any rule that GW has ever made up.

 

Now let's all stop killing brain cells over something silly and go worry about something really important. Like should I have tacos or spaghetti for dinner tonight? :lol:

[Ashe Darke]

Ahhh but Mordekiem the cover section doesn't say those are the only ways for an infantry model to gain a cover save (neither does the vehicle section), nor does it say 'only if in area terrain or obscured do you roll a dice, if failed then the unit takes an unsaved wound'.

 

They get a save as per SoS and pg 24 of the BRB explains what happens with that save. Now for an infantry unit that makes sense as it talks about wounds. Where you got that they don't get a save is beyond me. The BRB doesn't require them to be in cover to get a cover save, it does say that they do get a save from being in it and doesn't exclude the permission of cover saves from other methods. It also explains what to do with that save.

 

Pages 24 and 62 of the BRB are all you need for this.

 

I'm not gonna go into the rest about it being a non-obscured cover save for a vehicle and so you can't use page 62 as I've done so numerous times, each time getting more and more clearer. Sorry if you have but I get the impression you've not read the whole thread and I recommend you do if you haven't already. I also recommend looking at pages 24 and 62, again if you haven't already.

[Mordekiem]

Nope, I have not read the whole thread because I have heard this mumbo jumbo argument other places as well.

 

And I think you are missing the sarcasm in my post.

 

I believe ALL units (like the codex says) should benefit from a cover save. I am just trying to point out how absurb the argument is for no vehicle save, yet you say infantry will get one. :D

 

Then people try to claim you have no way of knowing how to make a vehicle cover save. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Then people claim that "all units" only really means all non-vehicle units. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

It is clear as day how it is supposed to work. Well, as clear as any GW rule ever gets. ;)

[Mezkh]

Nope, I have not read the whole thread because I have heard this mumbo jumbo argument other places as well.

 

And I think you are missing the sarcasm in my post.

 

I believe ALL units (like the codex says) should benefit from a cover save. I am just trying to point out how absurb the argument is for no vehicle save, yet you say infantry will get one. :D

 

Then people try to claim you have no way of knowing how to make a vehicle cover save. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Then people claim that "all units" only really means all non-vehicle units. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

It is clear as day how it is supposed to work. Well, as clear as any GW rule ever gets. ;)

 

No one ever claimed all units only really means all non-vehicle units.

 

The argument is NOT over whether vehicles do or do not get (are given a cover save, receive a cover save, are granted a cover save, etc) a cover save from SoS. All units means all units.

The argument is that vehicles cannot use the cover save they get from the power. :rolleyes:

 

Then people try to claim you have no way of knowing how to make a vehicle cover save.

 

If you can show in the rules how a vehicle can USE the cover save from Shield of Sanguinius, then quote it. Because it's not there. It's isn't as much the 'knowing how' as being allowed to. Though of course if it isn't there, you can't 'know how to either'. You might think you do, but you'd actually be making up rules to do it.

 

The rulebook DOES state how you can use a cover save to save against wounds.

 

It DOESN'T state how or that you can use a cover save against hits, unless you are also obscured.

[gdeathlegion]

Nope, I have not read the whole thread because I have heard this mumbo jumbo argument other places as well.

 

And I think you are missing the sarcasm in my post.

 

I believe ALL units (like the codex says) should benefit from a cover save. I am just trying to point out how absurb the argument is for no vehicle save, yet you say infantry will get one. :)

 

Then people try to claim you have no way of knowing how to make a vehicle cover save. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Then people claim that "all units" only really means all non-vehicle units. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

It is clear as day how it is supposed to work. Well, as clear as any GW rule ever gets. ;)

 

No one ever claimed all units only really means all non-vehicle units.

 

The argument is NOT over whether vehicles do or do not get (are given a cover save, receive a cover save, are granted a cover save, etc) a cover save from SoS. All units means all units.

The argument is that vehicles cannot use the cover save they get from the power. :)

 

Then people try to claim you have no way of knowing how to make a vehicle cover save.

 

If you can show in the rules how a vehicle can USE the cover save from Shield of Sanguinius, then quote it. Because it's not there. It's isn't as much the 'knowing how' as being allowed to. Though of course if it isn't there, you can't 'know how to either'. You might think you do, but you'd actually be making up rules to do it.

 

The rulebook DOES state how you can use a cover save to save against wounds.

 

It DOESN'T state how or that you can use a cover save against hits, unless you are also obscured.

 

For every glancing and penetrating hit, roll a dice, on a 4 or higher the hit is ignored. For any roll result less than 4 your opponent may make a roll on the vehicle damage table. This is how you use a vehicle cover save.

 

EDIT: See next post to understand the solution to this terrible waste of time.

[gdeathlegion]

The only paragraph that applies to this rules query/debate is on pg 62 of the BRB

It states: "If a special piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless otherwise specified in the codex" (BRB pg.62)

 

We know the SoS rule does not specifically say "obscured".

 

Yet we do know that for a vehicle to get cover, it must be obscured.

 

The rule states that every unit (vehicles included) receive a cover save.

 

This would mean that infantry models get cover.

 

And vehicle models count as being obscured.

 

If the vehicles did not count as obscured, they would not get cover.

 

-or-

 

If the vehicles (units) did not get cover (which they do), they would not count as obscured.

 

EDIT: Thus for the vehicles to receive a cover save (which it actually explicitly states that they do..in English) they would also count as obscured, I believe SoS grants vehicles obscurity. If the designers wished it not to, they would not have used the wording they did.

 

I hate the blood angels, but I don't think GW designed this rule for infantry only....

[Mezkh]

The only paragraph that applies to this rules query/debate is on pg 62 of the BRB

It states: "If a special piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless otherwise specified in the codex" (BRB pg.62)

 

We know the SoS rule does not specifically say "obscured".

 

Yet we do know that for a vehicle to get cover, it must be obscured.

 

The rule states that every unit (vehicles included) receive a cover save.

 

This would mean that infantry models get cover.

 

And vehicle models count as being obscured.

 

If the vehicles did not count as obscured, they would not get cover.

 

-or-

 

If the vehicles (units) did not get cover (which they do), they would not count as obscured.

 

EDIT: Thus for the vehicles to receive a cover save (which it actually explicitly states that they do..in English) they would also count as obscured, I believe SoS grants vehicles obscurity. If the designers wished it not to, they would not have used the wording they did.

 

I hate the blood angels, but I don't think GW designed this rule for infantry only....

 

You're affirming the consequent, which is a logical fallacy.

 

Your argument form is.

A: If a vehicle is obscured, it receives cover.

B: a vehicle has cover

C: therefore it is obscured.

 

This is incorrect, as C can be (and is) false, even if A and B are true.

Vehicles are given a cover save by Shield of Sanguinius, but aren't obscured. Therefore, they can't use the save.

[gdeathlegion]

The only paragraph that applies to this rules query/debate is on pg 62 of the BRB

It states: "If a special piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless otherwise specified in the codex" (BRB pg.62)

 

We know the SoS rule does not specifically say "obscured".

 

Yet we do know that for a vehicle to get cover, it must be obscured.

 

The rule states that every unit (vehicles included) receive a cover save.

 

This would mean that infantry models get cover.

 

And vehicle models count as being obscured.

 

If the vehicles did not count as obscured, they would not get cover.

 

-or-

 

If the vehicles (units) did not get cover (which they do), they would not count as obscured.

 

EDIT: Thus for the vehicles to receive a cover save (which it actually explicitly states that they do..in English) they would also count as obscured, I believe SoS grants vehicles obscurity. If the designers wished it not to, they would not have used the wording they did.

 

I hate the blood angels, but I don't think GW designed this rule for infantry only....

 

You're affirming the consequent, which is a logical fallacy.

 

Your argument form is.

A: If a vehicle is obscured, it receives cover.

B: a vehicle has cover

C: therefore it is obscured.

 

This is incorrect, as C can be (and is) false, even if A and B are true.

Vehicles are given a cover save by Shield of Sanguinius, but aren't obscured. Therefore, they can't use the save.

I agree with you here, being obscured is in fact the only way a vehicle can receive a cover save.

 

But by being granted a cover save(because a vehicle is in fact a unit, and as such it does receive the cover save) , hasn't the vehicle transitively become obscured as well?

I think one could argue this.

 

The ork Kustom Force Field rule is almost the same, except it states that vehicles count as being obscured, and in that sense, there is obvious confusion with the SoS rule.

[Mezkh]

I agree with you here, being obscured is in fact the only way a vehicle can receive a cover save.

That's not what I'm saying :) Vehicles can receive 'cover saves' other than from being obscured. For example, Storm caller and Shield of Sanguinius. They just can't use them, because they aren't allowed to roll for them unless they are obscured (as well).

 

 

But by being granted a cover save(because a vehicle is in fact a unit, and as such it does receive the cover save) , hasn't the vehicle transitively become obscured as well?

I think one could argue this.

 

Not logically, no. It would have to state it's obscured or fulfill the conditions of being obscured listed on page 62 to be 'obscured'. A cover save is the result of being obscured, but the presence of a cover save doesn't logically infer it received that cover save because it was obscured. This is because it could have received the cover save from something else, and in this case it's received the cover save from a special rule, SoS.

 

The fallacy is formally presented something like:

 

#1 If P, then Q.

#2 Q.

#3 Therefore, P

 

If we can show an argument where #3 is false, but #1 and #2 are true, then it's not a sound method of deduction, or reasoning.

 

The wikipedia example is:

 

#1 If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.

#2 Bill Gates is rich.

#3 Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

 

Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. There are any number of other ways to be rich.

 

We can frame your argument in the same way, in a very cut down format, but keeping the basic logical form.

 

1# If a vehicle is obscured, it receives cover

2# a vehicle has cover

3# therefore it is obscured.

 

We know 1# and #2 are true because they are written in the books as rules. But, we can't logically reason #3 is true just because #1 and #2 are. This doesn't necessarily mean #3 is false , but, you would have to find other supporting evidence or fulfilled criteria to show that a vehicle is obscured other than the existence of facts #1 and #2.

[Ashe Darke]

I agree with you here, being obscured is in fact the only way a vehicle can receive a cover save.

That's not what I'm saying :D Vehicles can receive 'cover saves' other than from being obscured. For example, Storm caller and Shield of Sanguinius. They just can't use them, because they aren't allowed to roll for them unless they are obscured (as well).

They can still roll the results, it's just nothing will happen as it is worded for infantry.

[Mezkh]

I agree with you here, being obscured is in fact the only way a vehicle can receive a cover save.

That's not what I'm saying :D Vehicles can receive 'cover saves' other than from being obscured. For example, Storm caller and Shield of Sanguinius. They just can't use them, because they aren't allowed to roll for them unless they are obscured (as well).

They can still roll the results, it's just nothing will happen as it is worded for infantry.

 

You could look at it that way from a results to the vehicle POV, however given a permissive ruleset though, would you agree there is no step for rolling an actual save against non-obscured targets?

 

If you look at the process laid out in the rules for resolving shooting against vehicles,

 

- Check range

- Roll to hit.

- Check vehicle facing

- Add D6 to strength and check penetration

- Check if vehicle is obscured. If obscured, roll applicable cover save.

- If glancing or penetrating, roll damage table, apply modifiers

- Check and apply damage result.

 

You can't roll a shield of sanguinius cover save without writing your own step into the rules. Vehicles don't really have a 'roll saving throws' step unlike the one for troops earlier. That's the crux of the whole 'the vehicle has a cover save, but can't use it POV.

[Ashe Darke]

Well I was looking at it as there being two types of cover saves, vehicle ones and standard ones (infantry).

 

It can't be the vehicle one, it's not obscured, so it must be the standard one. So they would have to use the bit on pg24 which then makes no sense. This is why I said I would use my ruling of giving them the 5+ cover as by how I'm following it, it's ridiculous. Where as the way you're following it means no dice is rolled at all.

 

So you have it as seen as they're not obscured they're not eligible for the vehicle cover save, move onto the next step?

 

See the other cover save while meant for infantry, it isn't exclusive to them, it's the general cover save rules, which was why my next step after 'not obscured' came here. Now if it did say these cover rules are just for infantry then your point would be right via the whole 'vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as vehicles' bit. But it's not, it just says cover saves. Anyone can use them, they're just written for infantry,

[Mezkh]

So you have it as seen as they're not obscured they're not eligible for the vehicle cover save, move onto the next step?

 

Yes, that's pretty much it. Without obscured, there is no roll saves step. They have the general save, but no step to use it in, or instructions to use it.

 

The rules are laid out in a very formulaic manner. We're initially given the instructions in the shooting phase from page 17 onwards.

 

A) Check range

B ) Roll to hit

C) Roll to wound

D) Take saving throws

E) Remove casualties.

 

Vehicle rules are different as mentioned throughout the book. Rules for shooting at them begin on page 60.

 

1) Check range

2) Roll to hit.

3) Check vehicle facing

4) Add D6 to strength and check penetration

5) Check if vehicle is obscured. If obscured, roll applicable cover save.

6) If glancing or penetrating, roll damage table, apply modifiers

7) Check and apply damage result.

 

There is no Take Saving throws step for vehicles, unless the vehicle is granted obscured status, it can then take a cover save.

 

And as covered, SoS doesn't have anything to overrule anything here. It's not specific enough to add new rules, it just states if any vehicles are within 6", they gain a (useless to them) cover save.

 

Viewing it your way, you could say steps 3-5 for vehicles are intended in the rules to replace step C entirely in A-E, and then you jump to step D, take saving throws, and then jump back to 7, check and apply damage results.

 

You'd still have the RAW problem of getting a nonsense result from the saving throw as you're missing the text for discarding the hit that is permitted for cover saves taken for obscured vehicles under step 5. Plus, it seems rather messy! and I can't seem to find much in favour of not having the rules for shooting at vehicles entirely self-contained under the vehicle section... The book tells us we get a roll to hit as normal, but we don't get a 'take (cover) saving throws as normal'. It almost goes the other way with the 'vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry' line. I would see the whole of page 62 standing in place of step D and E above.

[Sparhawk]

Which brings up another interesting point for shooting at the vehicles. LOS is drawn from a models eyes. Some models do not have eyes therefore they can never draw LOS.

 

Also Bjorn-the Fell handed can never use his invuln as there are no rules for what happens to a vehicle with an invuln. He ingnores the wound but has no wounds...

 

I think we need to get Joe Rogan in here to film a new hit vidoe series RAWs Gone Wild! :)

[Ming]

As for me, often a voice of reason, I'd give the vehicle / unit a 5+ cover save, as it seems to be intended, IF the spell coves off after my librarian attempts to nullify it...there are xenos that also have mobile cover saves, that would get the same from me.

 

If you tried to take a 4+ for vehicles, I'd hit you in the eye with a dice that always rolls a 1. Your mishap...LOL....

[Hellios]

Which brings up another interesting point for shooting at the vehicles. LOS is drawn from a models eyes. Some models do not have eyes therefore they can never draw LOS.

 

Also Bjorn-the Fell handed can never use his invuln as there are no rules for what happens to a vehicle with an invuln. He ingnores the wound but has no wounds...

 

I think we need to get Joe Rogan in here to film a new hit vidoe series RAWs Gone Wild! :)

 

Don't say that you will make my Eldar tanks with 4+ invulnerable saves cry :'( even fortune cannot save them now!

[JamesI]

Does the Tau vehicle upgrade that gives a cover save mention obscured or not? I forgot to check yesterday.

[Seahawk]

Yes, the Tau upgrade does say "Obscured," making it quite good.

 

I think we need to get Joe Rogan in here to film a new hit vidoe series RAWs Gone Wild!

Haha, having gone for three pages, that's exactly what this is :).

[Mezkh]

Also Bjorn-the Fell handed can never use his invuln as there are no rules for what happens to a vehicle with an invuln. He ingnores the wound but has no wounds...

 

I was waiting for someone to bring that up :wacko: Yes it sounds like he can't use it, (I haven't read it) but I'd happily make some rules with a an opponent using Bjorn to let him do so, given it's obviously intended he get something from his rule :P

 

 

As for Xenos, don't forget we get smoke launchers as our equivalent, and now Blood Angels have our own transport skimmer as well...

[Grey Mage]

I see what your saying Mezkh, but I think your wrong, and heres why:

 

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

 

This immediately tells us were working with cover saves. We then get three paragraphs, the first outlines the requirement of 50% cover and what to do when its close, that they dont get cover from area terrain, and that they cannot go to ground. None of this matters at all for how a vehicle responds to a successful cover save.

 

After the bullets we see this:

 

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it,

This may be where your having trouble- obscured is the only way in the BRB that one can gain a cover save from a vehicle... it is how you determine that you have one to give. It is NOT however mandated as nessecairy to determine the results of that cover save.

exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, a 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on).

This in turn shows us that a vehicle can in fact take different levels of cover saves... much like infantry. Thus we know that a 5+ cover save IS possible, and fully legal for a vehicle in any event.

 

If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage Table.

This right here though, is all we really needed to see. This is what is done when you pass your cover save on a vehicle.

 

Thus we know that a vehicle is a unit and thus is effected by the power, can have a 5+ cover save, and that you discard incoming enemy hits before damage is rolled if you pass such a save.

 

It seems vary straightforward to me.

[gdeathlegion]

It seems vary straightforward to me.

 

Same here, I will ALWAYS give the BA player the benefit of the doubt.

 

I suppose we'll have to wait for the grand tournies or local tournies to see what the final decision is on this one.

[Mezkh]

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it,

This may be where your having trouble- obscured is the only way in the BRB that one can gain a cover save from a vehicle... it is how you determine that you have one to give. It is NOT however mandated as nessecairy to determine the results of that cover save.

 

But it is mandated as necessary, as that's what it states. It cannot be read in any other way. If the target is not obscured, the whole paragraph is disregarded. It's an 'If X, then Y' statement. You can't disregard the requirement of X. That is the only written mandate enabling the use of and roll of a save.

 

We're pretty much covered all there is to cover here, and rehashing now, so I'm happy to leave it for the FAQ.

[Grey Mage]

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it,

This may be where your having trouble- obscured is the only way in the BRB that one can gain a cover save from a vehicle... it is how you determine that you have one to give. It is NOT however mandated as nessecairy to determine the results of that cover save.

 

But it is mandated as necessary, as that's what it states. It cannot be read in any other way. If the target is not obscured, the whole paragraph is disregarded. It's an 'If X, then Y' statement. You can't disregard the requirement of X. That is the only written mandate enabling the use of and roll of a save.

 

We're pretty much covered all there is to cover here, and rehashing now, so I'm happy to leave it for the FAQ.

You ignored the pertinent part entirely however- the next sentence tells us what to do in case of a successful cover save. The first sentence tells us one instance when they can make a cover save. The Blood Angel ability gives another one.

 

It is not nessecairy to gain a cover save in that way, but if one meets those criteria they certainly do get one.

[Mezkh]

I don't think I understand your point, that paragraph fairly appears plain 'If X then Y' to me. It feels like we are perhaps just referring back to the distinction between having and using again. The rules don't allow for vehicles to use/roll saves unless they are obscured. The special Obscured status isn't one of many instances where a vehicle is permitted to roll a cover save and discard a hit if successful. It's the only instance. Without being obscured, your vehicles cannot roll saves.

 

If you can show otherwise, please do so.

 

To help, here is a the cut down summary of the step-by-step rules for shooting vehicles.

 

1) Check range

2) Roll to hit.

3) Check vehicle facing

4) Add D6 to strength and check penetration

5) Check if vehicle is obscured. If obscured, roll applicable cover save.

6) If glancing or penetrating, roll damage table, apply modifiers

7) Check and apply damage result.

 

All of these can be referred to as written in the rulebook. If this is incomplete and there is a further 'roll any saves the vehicle might have' step you'd like to add, where is this written that we can do this in the vehicle rules, or where in the rules does it permit rolling a save for a non-obscured vehicle?