Shield of Sanguinius/Vehicles

[Sparhawk]

Actually he's admitted that there are many ways a vehicle can Gain a cover save but he is insisting that there is only one situation in which they can Use said cover save.

 

As has been mentioned before and before that and before even that...the BRB actually never seems to acknowledge that there is any other situation but Obscured in which a vehicle can GET a cover save let alone actually use it. The mere fact that they can get the cover save without the obscurement would suggest they could use it.

 

I'm really interested in someone here explaining how Bjorn has no invul and wraithguard can't shoot....

[Sorien]

Bjorns rule *specifically* states he gets an invul save against glancing and penetrating hits. If it just said he has a 5+ invul save, then he would never be able to use it (as invul saves can only be taken against wounds). This is a specifically stated exception to the normal rules.

 

Again codex > BRB *only* applies if there is a direct contradiction between the two. Period. Since there is no contradictions between SoS, Stormcaller and any rules then that simply does not apply here.

 

Again, KFF, smoke, skimmers moving fast, etc all specifically give vehicles obscured status. thus they are eligible to take the cover save stated by each rule.

 

No obscured = no cover save.

[thade]

Bjorns rule *specifically* states he gets an invul save against glancing and penetrating hits. If it just said he has a 5+ invul save, then he would never be able to use it (as invul saves can only be taken against wounds). This is a specifically stated exception to the normal rules.

 

Again codex > BRB *only* applies if there is a direct contradiction between the two. Period. Since there is no contradictions between SoS, Stormcaller and any rules then that simply does not apply here.

 

Again, KFF, smoke, skimmers moving fast, etc all specifically give vehicles obscured status. thus they are eligible to take the cover save stated by each rule.

 

No obscured = no cover save.

 

So, you are saying that a Dreadnought Librarian gets no cover save from using the power on himself?

 

I still don't see how the following sentence didn't settle this at the go:

 

"The Librarian and any unit within 6" receive a 5+ cover save until the end of phase."

 

Is a vehicle a unit? Yes. Done. That's probably the way they thought of it; it's so simple, I don't expect we'll ever see it addressed in an FAQ. (Though, after only a short time of playing this game and hanging out here, I seldom expect anything insofar as "Help with rules clarification" from GW.)

 

It shouldn't come as a surprise to any of you that a codex might 1. supercede a BRB rule (indeed, every codex is full of things that do this) and 2. GW doesn't write each and every rule to be legal-style bulletproof. Almost every rule in the book breaks down somehow if you hammer on it enough. I recommend not doing that; it makes the game less fun. <3

[Mezkh]

The power gives a save, it doesn't state when and how the save it used.

It doesnt have to. Those are covered by the basic rules, wich you have yet to show do not allow a vehicle to take a cover save other than obscured.

 

No it isn't. And the onus is not on me to show a vehicle can't use a cover save when not obscured, it's on you to show it can. So far you haven't.

 

All youve done is repeatedly point out one way they can gain a cover save, and then arbitrarily insisted its the only way do so.

 

No, please don't misrepresent me. As I have said many times, gaining a cover save is not disputed. I've pointed out one way they (vehicles) can use a cover save, and that way requires obscured status. You have not shown where it is written how and/or when vehicles can use a cover save when not obscured. This is because it's not in the book, which I keep stating. Many times.

 

The section about cover saves- BRB pg. 20 tell us when a cover save is taken.

Which is right after the roll to wound, and right before removing casualties. It also tells us the result a failed save is an inflicted wound. None of this applies to vehicles, so this is not evidence for your argument.

 

Particularly note also pg. 301 of the large book, left hand side under "shooting sequence" wich sums up the basic process rather nicely

It states we take saving throws right after rolling to wound. Obviously again, N/A to vehicles, unless they have wounds.

 

Pg. 62, paragraph 3 sentence 2 tells us what happens when a vehicle, specificly, makes its cover save.

 

Which is following on from Pg. 62, Paragraph 3, sentence 1 which states "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.

 

Is the vehicle obscured? No. So paragraph 3 is disregarded completely, as we have not fulfilled the requirement. No where else in the rules does it state that vehicles may use a cover saving throw against glancing or penetrating hits, and if they succeed in the roll, can disregard the hit and not roll on the damage table.

 

 

So, you are saying that a Dreadnought Librarian gets no cover save from using the power on himself?

 

Yes. It's not very hard to accept this? Although the cover save it grants can't be used by vehicles, it has plenty of applications in other instances. A dreadnought Librarian, as cool as they are, isn't the only type of Librarian in the Codex, and the power one of many listed he can choose two of.

 

 

I still don't see how the following sentence didn't settle this at the go:

 

"The Librarian and any unit within 6" receive a 5+ cover save until the end of phase."

 

Is a vehicle a unit? Yes. Done. That's probably the way they thought of it; it's so simple, I don't expect we'll ever see it addressed in an FAQ. (Though, after only a short time of playing this game and hanging out here, I seldom expect anything insofar as "Help with rules clarification" from GW.)

 

Because of the distinction between having(recieving) and using. The rules do not provide for vehicles using cover saves unless they are obscured.

 

We'll probably see it addressed in a GW FAQ. Obviously given the length of the thread a vehicle having a save it can't use makes players hot under the collar. As for non official user FAQs, we already have

 

http://www.mediafire.com/BloodAngelsFAQ

 

Psychic Powers

BA.63.01 – Q: Does “Shield of Sanguinius” benefit vehicles?

A: No. The vehicle has a cover save, but because it is not also obscured, this cover save may only be used against wounds, which a

vehicle doesn't have, so this save can never be used. [R.a.W]

 

I would be surprised if INAT or GW rule otherwise as well as they don't tend to go against RaW or add new rules to the game unless it's unit breakingly bad, like Vindicators not having Large Blast shells.

Also GW would be very silly to create a specific obscured status which is referenced across a bunch of rules whenever there is the need to grant a vehicle the use of a cover save against hits, and then stop referencing it. That's pretty much the giveaway it wasn't intended for players to see this rule as being able to give vehicles a save they can use.

[Skalver]

Again, KFF, smoke, skimmers moving fast, etc all specifically give vehicles obscured status. thus they are eligible to take the cover save stated by each rule.

 

No obscured = no cover save.

 

Incorrect. "Obscured Status" as a special rule does not exist in the base rule book. The rules say that 50% of a vehicle must be obscured for it to count as being in cover, just like the rules for infantry state that they must be obscured to count as being in cover. The only reference to being obscured by an ability in the rulebook is where it says:

 

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

 

All this means is that if a rule states a vehicle counts as being obscured at all times the save it gets is 4+ unless otherwise specified. It defines the default magnitude of an ability granted vehicle cover save. In no way does it state that there is some special "Obscured Status" special rule that needs to be applied to a vehicle. There is no such thing as "Obscured Status" as a special rule. The word obscured is never bolded in the rules, never defined specifically and is used with its standard english language usage both in the infantry and the vehicle rules.

 

The psychic power defines the magnitude of its cover save as 5+. The part of the rulebook that specifies the default value for an ability granted cover save is thus irrelevent.

 

You could, if you want, argue that since the SoS rule does not specifically state that it obscures those affected and that since both the infantry and vehicle rules say a model must be obscured to be in cover that neither the infantry or the vehicles can use the cover save but I see no basis by which you could claim that "Obscured Status" is a special rulebook defined entity that must be applied to vehicles before they can avail of a cover save. Of course the counter to this is that the ability does state it conjures a physical barrier which is what is obscuring the units in question.

 

When are infantry in cover? From the BRB (page 21)

 

When any part of the target model's body is obscured from the point of the firer

 

When are vehicles in cover? From the BRB (page 62)

 

If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of the firing models

 

You are trying to make out "Obscured Status" to be a very specific thing, defined by the rulebook that must be applied to a vehicle before it can claim a cover save, you are incorrect in that, the term is never specifically defined and the word obscured is used several times, in seperate sections of the rulebook, related to both vehicles and non-vehicles in its normal english language usage. They just answer the "How obscured is obscured?" question differently for both vehicles and infantry (for obvious reasons).

 

Yes the rules say the vehicle has to be obscured from the point of the firer but the infantry rules say the exact same thing but with different requirements for the amount of the model that is obscured before the vehicle counts as in cover. The wording is to prevent people trying to claim cover saves for a large vehicle parked behind a small bush or a barrel. Unless a term is specifically defined in the rulebook it is just a normal english word that they use for the purposes of explanation. You are attempting to define it to a specific, much narrower meaning that just doesn't fit with the usage of the word throughout the rule book.

 

Lastly, the psychic power says it conjures a golden barrier. It is a physical barrier that would obscure (standard english language usage) any models behind it. Not thouroughly but hey, its as good as a large floating bush which could give those vehicles a similar 5+ cover save. Does the little blue librarian need to manifest real psychic powers and conjure an actual, real world visible barrier on the battlefield before people will be happy? Things don't work in the game if you have to imagine them? Where does it say that this imaginary conjured barrier can not obscure a vehicle? If it summoned a giant bush would that be different since it is very clearly stated that bushes can obscure vehicles?

 

What will the next rule debate be? "Does my opponent have to actually draw a line on the table and over my painted terrain to use Blood Lance or Jaws of the World Wolf?"

[Grey Mage]

Pg. 62, paragraph 3 sentence 2 tells us what happens when a vehicle, specificly, makes its cover save.

 

Which is following on from Pg. 62, Paragraph 3, sentence 1 which states "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.

 

Is the vehicle obscured? No. So paragraph 3 is disregarded completely, as we have not fulfilled the requirement. No where else in the rules does it state that vehicles may use a cover saving throw against glancing or penetrating hits, and if they succeed in the roll, can disregard the hit and not roll on the damage table.

This is a logical Fallacy, and this is where your argument falls apart. Each sentence in that paragraph is a stand alone phase, one is not requisite to the other.

 

The simple fact remains, a vehicle can have a cover save, can use it, and that second sentence shows us what to do. There is no "discarding" of the rules.

 

Nowhere in that paragraph, or any other in the BRB does it say that you MUST be obscured in order to use a cover save. It just tells us that you DO get one if you happen to be obscured.

 

That same section notes that the ONLY differences between vehicle cover saves and infantry/bike/jump infantry/cavalry/beast cover saves are those outlined in the three bullets given. None of those have any mention of a psychic power in them. Indeed, the section on infantry/bike/jump infantry/cavalry/beast cover saves does not mention psychic powers either, yet you do not contest that they can use the one granted by these powers.

 

Because those differences do not apply in this case, nor does any statement there state that obscured is the ONLY time we can have a vehicle use a cover save, the psychic power works exactly as it says it does- the vehicle has a 5+ cover save, wich it can use just like it would if it was infantry because the vehicle particulars do not rule otherwise, and if it is passed we discard those hits instead of rolling on the damage chart.

 

Simple, see?

[Roland Durendal]

I would be surprised if INAT or GW rule otherwise as well as they don't tend to go against RaW or add new rules to the game unless it's unit breakingly bad, like Vindicators not having Large Blast shells.

 

That made me laugh out loud for real. Have you read the INAT FAQ? They make up their own rules and twist interpretations left and right. They definitely go outside RAW all the time when it doesn't suit how they feel the rules should work. Emphasis on the "how they feel the rules should work" becuase they have their own interpretation and opinion of what GW intended, which I find quite pretentious to be honest (in so far as that they go out and widely publish their FAQ as the be all end all of FAQs for tourneys and such). Using the INAT FAQ (or any independent FAQ for that matter) is akin to playing a whole new game. They even admit in their own FAQ as much. I wouldn't use INAT or any other independent FAQ as proof of one interpretation being right. GW is the ONLY source for FAQ's and for rules clarifications. So until GW FAQ's it, it's up to players to decide.

 

Personally if you're opponent disagrees with how you want to play the rule, use the rule of 4+: On a 4+ it can be used one way, otherwise it's is used th eother way. And if you're facing an obstinate player who refuses to make such an amiable comrpomise, then you probably wouldn't want to play them in a game int he first place.

[Mezkh]

Again, KFF, smoke, skimmers moving fast, etc all specifically give vehicles obscured status. thus they are eligible to take the cover save stated by each rule.

 

No obscured = no cover save.

 

You are trying to make out "Obscured Status" to be a very specific thing, defined by the rulebook that must be applied to a vehicle before it can claim a cover save, you are incorrect in that, the term is never specifically defined and the word obscured is used several times, in seperate sections of the rulebook, related to both vehicles and non-vehicles in its normal english language usage.

 

There is no such thing as "Obscured Status" as a special rule. The word obscured is never bolded in the rules, never defined specifically and is used with its standard english language usage both in the infantry and the vehicle rules.

 

That's hardly a defensible position to take.

 

The BRB doesn't bold specifically defined terms mid paragraph. however, note the big bold title on page 62. "Vehicles and cover - Obscured targets."

 

If that isn't enough, we're given the definition.

 

At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is targeted needs to [requirements] to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured.

 

And we're provided usage of the term

 

If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the open...

 

....in the same turn that it used it's smoke launchers, but will count as obscured...

 

A skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in it's last Movement phase counts as obscured (cover save of 4+) when fired at.

 

And the payoff, which is what all the fuss is about:

 

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

 

Hence lies the conclusion of the argument, the book has stated that a cover save may be taken against a glancing/penetrating hit if a target is obscured.

 

There is no provision in the rules for rolling a cover save, or any save, against a hit while not being obscured.

 

Therefore we can conclude that:

 

RAW units gain a cover save from SoS,

The BRB permits the use of this save against wounds.

There are no rules in the BRB that permit non-obscured vehicles to use the save against hits

Therefore models with wounds can use the save, vehicles cannot.

 

We can also conclude that the rules as they are written can be treated as sacrosanct or mere guidelines, should you wish to discuss with your opponent extending the rules to allow any vehicle regardless of it's obscured status to make full use of any saving throws they may have to negate glancing and penetrating hits, feel free to do so.

[Mezkh]

This is a logical Fallacy...

 

Really? Which?

 

and this is where your argument falls apart. Each sentence in that paragraph is a stand alone phase, one is not requisite to the other.

 

It's a paragraph. If the sentences were meant to be standalone, they wouldn't be in a paragraph.

 

The simple fact remains, a vehicle can have a cover save, can use it, and that second sentence shows us what to do. There is no "discarding" of the rules.

 

If it's a simple fact surely you can quote from the book the permissive rules that allow a non-obscured vehicle to roll any kind of save that would discard a glancing or penetrating hit.

 

Nowhere in that paragraph, or any other in the BRB does it say that you MUST be obscured in order to use a cover save. It just tells us that you DO get one if you happen to be obscured.

 

Correct. But still waiting on the paragraph that permits rolling a save on a non-obscured vehicle.

 

That same section notes that the ONLY differences between vehicle cover saves and infantry/bike/jump infantry/cavalry/beast cover saves are those outlined in the three bullets given. None of those have any mention of a psychic power in them. Indeed, the section on infantry/bike/jump infantry/cavalry/beast cover saves does not mention psychic powers either, yet you do not contest that they can use the one granted by these powers.

 

I wouldn't dispute those units recieving saves because unless excepted they are treated the same as infantry - vehicles are not.

 

Page 4: In order to make it easier to learn the basic rules, the first few sections of the book, covering Movement, Shooting, Assault, and Morale are written with respect to infantry units.

Page 15-26: Instructions for the shooting sequence, including rolling to wound, taking saving throws, removing casualties.

Page 51: Unit types - In this section, you will find the rules for monstrous creatues, jump infantry, bikes and jetbikes, beasts and cavalry and artillery. Note that vehicles are also a different unit type, but they are so vastly different they have an entire section of the rules devoted to them

Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as infantry.

Page 56: Vehicles - because vehicles do 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.

 

 

Because those differences do not apply in this case, nor does any statement there state that obscured is the ONLY time we can have a vehicle use a cover save, the psychic power works exactly as it says it does- the vehicle has a 5+ cover save, wich it can use just like it would if it was infantry because the vehicle particulars do not rule otherwise, and if it is passed we discard those hits instead of rolling on the damage chart.

 

If your vehicle can use a cover save in the same manner as infantry, feel free to use it to negate any wounds it may suffer. If you want to use a cover save to negate penetrating and glancing hits - there is no RAW permitting this while a vehicle is not obscured.

 

Simple, see?

 

That's what I keep saying, but look how long the thread has gotten.

[the sanguinor]

but obscured grants a 4+ cover save. seeing as the power is a 5+ it clearly isnt obscured..otherwise it would have a 4+. therefore you do get the save AND you are not obscured.

[thade]

but obscured grants a 4+ cover save. seeing as the power is a 5+ it clearly isnt obscured..otherwise it would have a 4+. therefore you do get the save AND you are not obscured.

 

<3

[Sparhawk]

In all fairness obscured only grants the 4+ in the open. If the vehicle is obscured by a hedge then the save is 5+. I agree that the power should be USEABLE by vehicles but I just want to make sure we're not spreading misinformation.

[stinkenheim]

if the power was not meant to include vehicles then it would have been worded 'the psyker and all non vehicle units within 6" gain a 5+ cover save'

if it were meant to grant a 5+ save to non-vehicle units and class vehicles as obscurred (4+ sv) it would have been written like that, see the KFF.

it is not written like either of those which leads to the conclusion that all units, including vehciles as they are not listed as exceptions, are granted a 5+ cover save if within range.

 

you can play it how you like, but i am not going to argue with my opponent that their vehicle has a save it can't use because someone on the internet is adamant that the word 'obscured' needs to be included for them to use it. i happen to enjoy playing games and not getting bogged down in pointless arguements which leave both sides feeling far from happy about continuing the game.

[Brother Casman]

Look at it this way:

 

Let p = the target is obscured

Let q = suffers a glancing or penetrating hit

Let r = [the target] may take a cover save against [the hit], exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound

 

The rule is thus:

If (p AND q), then r

 

So accepting this premise as true, you cannot do the following:

If (p AND q), then r

not p [making (p AND q) false]

therefore, not r

 

See denying the antecedent.

[thade]

Look at it this way:

 

Let p = the target is obscured

Let q = suffers a glancing or penetrating hit

Let r = [the target] may take a cover save against [the hit], exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound

 

The rule is thus:

If (p AND q), then r

 

So accepting this premise as true, you cannot do the following:

If (p AND q), then r

not p [making (p AND q) false]

therefore, not r

 

See denying the antecedent.

 

They write the manuals in english, and not in the manner one write a math or logic text. Again, each rule in this game will break down when put into formats like this.

 

That said, you did build this argument to win, which you did by not defining "obscured", and not setting rules to deal with the clear counter-argument which every opponent of this has conveniently turned a blind-eye to: that of the Furioso Librarian Dreadnought.

 

The Libby Dreadnought is a Vehicle (Walker). By your interpretation, it would not benefit from a power that it can be given. Given that a librarian can be either infantry or vehicle, they would have stated clearly that the power wouldn't work for Librarian Dreadnoughts...which they do not.

 

For those of you that like logical terms, my assertion here is that the relationship between p and r here is misrepresented, as it doesn't take into account issues like this. We don't have a precedent because this is a new rule, so your premises do not cover all the bases. Given a broken set of premises, you can prove anything you like, which you've demonstrated clearly.

[thade]

I thought I'd sum up my stance here:

 

- SoS is a new psychic power in the BA codex.

- Functionally it is analogous to the KFF; it is no more powerful and serves to help the BA vehicles to get within assault range...just like the Orks. It makes sense.

- All of the rules discussing the word "obscured" in the BRB deal with Terrain...differentiating between Area Terrain and visual Terrain pieces. They do not address psychic powers, which - like magic-systems in any game - bend the rules.

- In the BA codex, Librarians can be put into DA. Were it the case that the Libby could no longer gain a benefit from DA the rule would state "non-vehicle units" or "the Librarian cannot benefit from this power when in DA". They do this kind of thing all over the place, even though you might find something regarding it in the BRB.

 

No rule in WH40k holds up to bullet-proof legal/logical analysis; they simply are not written that way. GW sells models to collectors, and that's where they make all of their money. That's why the rulesets are so lackluster..for every dollar they make on rulebook sales they make several orders of magnitude more on models and paints. We're left to decide what makes sense, which does not leave us only to squeeze the BRB in our hands screaming about an obscure (irony) sentence that invalidates something new they've given to an army.

 

Bottom-line. This power is not over-powered and makes a lot of sense. Let it slide.

[Isryion]

Well put, Thade.

[Grey Mage]

Correct. But still waiting on the paragraph that permits rolling a save on a non-obscured vehicle.

 

That same section notes that the ONLY differences between vehicle cover saves and infantry/bike/jump infantry/cavalry/beast cover saves are those outlined in the three bullets given. None of those have any mention of a psychic power in them. Indeed, the section on infantry/bike/jump infantry/cavalry/beast cover saves does not mention psychic powers either, yet you do not contest that they can use the one granted by these powers.

 

I wouldn't dispute those units recieving saves because unless excepted they are treated the same as infantry - vehicles are not.

 

Page 4: In order to make it easier to learn the basic rules, the first few sections of the book, covering Movement, Shooting, Assault, and Morale are written with respect to infantry units.

Page 15-26: Instructions for the shooting sequence, including rolling to wound, taking saving throws, removing casualties.

Page 51: Unit types - In this section, you will find the rules for monstrous creatues, jump infantry, bikes and jetbikes, beasts and cavalry and artillery. Note that vehicles are also a different unit type, but they are so vastly different they have an entire section of the rules devoted to them

Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as infantry.

Page 56: Vehicles - because vehicles do 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.

 

 

Because those differences do not apply in this case, nor does any statement there state that obscured is the ONLY time we can have a vehicle use a cover save, the psychic power works exactly as it says it does- the vehicle has a 5+ cover save, wich it can use just like it would if it was infantry because the vehicle particulars do not rule otherwise, and if it is passed we discard those hits instead of rolling on the damage chart.

 

If your vehicle can use a cover save in the same manner as infantry, feel free to use it to negate any wounds it may suffer. If you want to use a cover save to negate penetrating and glancing hits - there is no RAW permitting this while a vehicle is not obscured.

Incorrect. There is RAW permitting it- the second sentence is quite explicit on what happens when a vehicle succeeds on its cover save roll. Note, not an obscured roll, but a successful cover save.

 

1) Vehicle rules specificly state that those 3 bullets are the only differences between how they gain a cover save and how infantry gain a cover save.

2) Infantry can gain a cover save from shield of sanguinius.

3) The power specifies "units".

4) Vehicles are units.

5) Thus vehicles gain a cover save from shield of sanguinius.

6) According to the steps given to us in the BRB cover saves are rolled after damage is ascertained, but before resolving it. In the case of infantry after wounds are rolled but before casualties are taken.

7) Paragraph 3 sentence 2 tells us what happens when we pass a cover save.

 

Its also worth noting that pg 62 refers to vehicles taking cover saves, determining them as normal units, but makes no mention of obscured:

 

... and then the rules for normal units to work out if they entire squadron is in cover or not.

 

Why on earth would we use those rules if they were not applicable to vehicles mezkh?

[Isryion]

In order for Mezkh's theory to stand, the rule author would have had to think, "Hmmm...I don't want to include vehicles in this. Does this sentence make it clear? Of course it does! Players will clearly note the lack of the word 'obscure' in the rule. They will then reference p. 62 of the BRB and realize that since the vehicle is not obscured, they get a cover save but can't actually use it. I obviously don't need to reference anything else." It's so convoluted it's not even funny.

 

I'm sorry, do you find it to difficult to reference the rulebook when playing and something unusual comes up?

It's not rocket science we're dealing with here. Let's not dumb down the game any further.

 

- Shield gives all units 5+ cover saves - Codex

- Only obscured vehicles use cover saves - BRB

 

 

Conversely, do you look up every rule that comes up in your game for this amount of nuance and loopholes?

 

No, I don't find it difficult. There's a big difference from dumbing something down and accepting that a rule is clear at face value. The reason I would never look it up is because the rule uses the word "units." Most people have a clear definition of what that is. I know how a unit is defined. Once we've done that, it's over because rule by itself is clear. None of this nonsense about "it has a cover save but can't use it." If that were what was intended, it would have and should have been worded differently. In fact, unlike the way you are using the word "obscure," "unit" is actually clearly defined as a game term.

[Sparhawk]

I actually have a problem with this mentality that spelling out rules is "Dumbing Down" the game. That sentiment just smacks of elitist ramblings about how much better your game is because the rules are so convuluted that if you didn't actually write the book then you can't actually play the game. I think what we're looking for is a little thing called accesability and ease of use, the game can still be just as nuanced and fun with rules that say exactly what they mean at face value.

 

Also it would help if GW did what WotC does for the DND books, the PHB has a list of actual game terms in the back with clear definitions of what they mean and how they affect the game. It makes it very easy to see that something is "dazed" and then just flip to the entry on dazed and it says exactly what you can do.

[Brother Casman]

Sorry, Thade. I should have been more clear: I'm challenging Mezkh's assertion that a vehicle may only use a cover save if is obscured.

 

If I may, I'll repeat my argument here, using words this time:

 

 

The rule is this:

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, then [the target] may take a cover save against [the hit], exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound

 

So accepting this premise as true (it is a rule, after all), you cannot do the following:

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, then [the target] may take a cover save against [the hit], exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound

The target is not obscured

therefore, the target may not take a cover save

 

See denying the antecedent.

 

To be able to say that the vehicle is not obscured, therefore it may not use a cover save, the rule would have to read something like the following:

If, and only if, the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, then [the target] may take a cover save against [the hit], exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound

(Of course, if we had a rule like that, it wouldn't matter, because then we could say that giving it a cover save makes it obscured.)

 

I hope I've been more clear? I do agree with you - vehicles should (and do!) benefit from Shield of Sanguinius.

[Sparhawk]

We have an explicit case for

If x then y

But we do not have a case for

If not x then not y as the issue of an unobscured cover save is never taken into account.

 

Sorry I just needed to get at least one post in here using some logic and symbols :wub:.

 

In all seriousness you make an excellent point Casman. :down:

[rat of vengence]

There is NOTHING in this book that states it MUST be obscured to roll a cover save.

 

It's a permissive ruleset. The only permission we are given to roll a save is when a vehicle is obscured. Therefore, on the facts, we must be obscured to roll a cover save for a vehicle.

 

Do you understand what a permissive ruleset is?

I think he does. I think he has noticed the Codex (Codex>Rulebook) gives him permission.

 

I'm sorry, do you find it to difficult to reference the rulebook when playing and something unusual comes up?

It's not rocket science we're dealing with here. Let's not dumb down the game any further.

 

- Shield gives all units 5+ cover saves - Codex

- Only obscured vehicles use cover saves - BRB

 

There is no override as one doesn't contradict the other.

You could chose to read it that way. Yes, normally, obscured is the only way to gain a cover save. There is a special rule that bypasses that need. Terminators can't outflank. You must have the 'Scout' or 'Infiltrators' rule to outflank. There is an exception to that rule in the codex though, isn't there.

 

I can't believe this is going still. I would have thought that the weight of opinion might have convinced you you have it wrong. There are even several excellent points which you seem to have ignored, like what OMG said.

 

Oh well, the rest of us know how to play it :)

 

RoV

[Skalver]

Therefore we can conclude that:

 

RAW units gain a cover save from SoS,

The BRB permits the use of this save against wounds.

There are no rules in the BRB that permit non-obscured vehicles to use the save against hits

Therefore models with wounds can use the save, vehicles cannot.

 

We can also conclude that the rules as they are written can be treated as sacrosanct or mere guidelines, should you wish to discuss with your opponent extending the rules to allow any vehicle regardless of it's obscured status to make full use of any saving throws they may have to negate glancing and penetrating hits, feel free to do so.

 

Even if all that was so, then you still need to show that the barrier conjured by the psychic power can not obscure the vehicles. Your entire position hinges on a refusal to accept that the barrier that hides the models is actually present in the game.

[thade]

Sorry, Thade. I should have been more clear: I'm challenging Mezkh's assertion that a vehicle may only use a cover save if is obscured.

 

Perhaps had I read your wiki-link it would've tipped me off. <3 Thanks for clarifying.

 

 

 

[++ Fixed quote formatting. I ++]