Shield of Sanguinius/Vehicles

[Shayn]

One of the reasons for such an open rule set is to avoid the excessively long rule books in games like Starfleet Battles. The rules there were iron and concrete clad in titanium. There are no roll offs, either it says it or it does not. It may take 3 pages and sometimes 47 pages to include all the possible weapon types and how they may affect each and every race in the game but they have lawyers writing their rules for just these purposes. Games like this get tedious and focus gets lost fast, hence why it is generally used for simple 1 on 1 action. All this including convoluted math equations just to explain a simple point in a "game" rule book is way overkill. I do not remember seeing a math degree in the list of items needed to play the game. The rules of the game are meant to be simple. Until an official GW FAQ comes out the only choice between 2 players of differing opinion is the roll off. If you have heartache with it, send the rule clarification request in to GW. If you have not done so, quit arguing the point as it apparently does not matter enough for you to get the right answer.

[Sorien]

When you have 100's or even 1000's of dollars worth of prize money/product on the line, having an unambiguous and titanium-clad ruleset is of utmost importance.

 

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

 

This is correct, and I used this same argument when discussing the KFF and Killa Kans.

 

However I learned it is also irrelevant.

 

All you have to do is show the text that gives permission for non-obscured vehicles to use a cover save against glancing or penetrating hits.

 

hint: there is no such permission.

 

Cover saves are only allowed against wounds, as stated over and over again. You simply can not make the leap of faith that says they are also allowed against glancing or penetrating hits without also having obscured status.

 

I'll say it again, the statement codex > BRB is a colloquialism and simply not entirely accurate. It only applies if there is a specific contradiction between the two. General or perceived contradictions don't count. The concept is better described as specific > general.

 

This is why Bjorn's and the Mega Dred's wording is very specific, that they have an invul save against glancing and penetrating hits. If they only said the models have an invul save, neither would ever be able to use it as invul saves can only be taking against wounds, just like cover saves. However cover saves have an additional set of rules that apply to vehicles while invul saves do not. The 2 concepts (cover saves vs wounds and cover saves vs glancing and penetrating hits) are analogous but not interchangeable.

 

That is why SoS and Stormcaller do not work on vehicles.

 

I should note that the wording of the KFF also gives "all units" a 5+ cover save. But because it also grants vehicles obscured status, they also get a 4+ cover save as per Page 62 and wargear.

[rat of vengence]

When you have 100's or even 1000's of dollars worth of prize money/product on the line, having an unambiguous and titanium-clad ruleset is of utmost importance.

Then I suggest you are playing the wrong game. There never has been such a ruleset from GW.

 

All you have to do is show the text that gives permission for non-obscured vehicles to use a cover save against glancing or penetrating hits.

hint: there is no such permission.

Yes there is. Right there where it says 'all units...'

 

Cover saves are only allowed against wounds, as stated over and over again. You simply can not make the leap of faith that says they are also allowed against glancing or penetrating hits without also having obscured status.

Where does it say that? I think you are making a conclusion, not using a "unambiguous and titanium-clad rule".

 

I should note that the wording of the KFF also gives "all units" a 5+ cover save. But because it also grants vehicles obscured status, they also get a 4+ cover save as per Page 62 and wargear.

And the codex clearly states that it benefits from a 5+ save, no more, no less.

 

Wow, way to read between the lines!

 

RoV

[Grey Mage]

Cover saves are only allowed against wounds, as stated over and over again. You simply can not make the leap of faith that says they are also allowed against glancing or penetrating hits without also having obscured status.

This is simply incorrect.

 

A vehicle is a unit, if an ability grants "any unit" a cover save then they are explicitly included in the list of models that can gain a cover save because they are explicitly a unit.

 

There is nothing in the rulebook that states the only way to get a cover say is via obscured status, that is simply one that happens to be discussed in the BRB. The rules therein on how a unit uses a cover save do not require obscured status, though it is mentioned as a possible source. That it is a possible source does not make it the only source.

 

Just like I could get a loan from a bank, and how to do so is clearly shown in the laws of my state and nation, I could also get a loan from my uncle, and both would give me X amount of money and require me to pay them back in the same amount of time.

 

I should note that the wording of the KFF also gives "all units" a 5+ cover save. But because it also grants vehicles obscured status, they also get a 4+ cover save as per Page 62 and wargear.

Your interpretation is incorrect. Why? Because the BRB specificly notes that a vehicle that is obscured receives a cover save equal to what infantry in the same cover would benefit from. Thus they would get a 5+ cover save. ONLY if the bonus is unspecified does it default to a 4+ save.

[thade]

This angle has been addressed, but bears repeating as it seems to have been overlooked by our protesters.

 

Codex rules supercede base rulebook rules. Why? Because the way GW differentiates each army from one another is by breaking the base rules in each codex. Here are some examples:

- BRB says when a unit dies, it goes off the table. Some Tyranid units can come back.

- Necron and Inquisition units have weaponry that ignore *Invulnerable* saves.

- When a model is wounded, it is removed (from the table) as a casualty. Necron models are not removed right away, with a chance to stand up after you kill them.

- Space Marines automatically rally if no enemy unit is within six inches, no rolling required, even if below half strength (a direct "contradiction" to the way the morale/fleeing/regrouping rules work)

- Everything in that stinky Eldar codex breaks a base rule. For instance, Farseers can force you to roll psychic tests on three dice instead of two (a "contradiction" to the BRB).

 

So, since the BRB says Psychic tests are taken on two dice, should we overrule the Eldar rule? How about And They Shall Know No Fear? That rule is contradicting a BRB rule. By the logic of some of you, we should overrule these rules. But I bet you wouldn't. :blink:

 

These rules are not bullet-broof; they never will be. Sure there can be a lot of prize money/goods on the line, but fairness for the PLAYER is not the motivator. It's the amount of money they make off of selling models that is the motivator. That $200 box set costs GW so little to make that, hey, it's no skin off their back to give one away at a promotional (which we call a tournament). Don't expect the rules to always be clear cut, or you will often be disappointed. That said, of all the rules to get finicky over, this is a weird one. It does pretty clearly state "all units", and nowhere does it make mention of "vehicle units". Must be an exception to the BRB rules, as so many other codex rules are.

 

EDIT: Grammarz.

[Mordekiem]

This angle has been addressed, but bears repeating as it seems to have been overlooked by our protesters.

 

Codex rules supercede base rulebook rules. Why? Because the way GW differentiates each army from one another is by breaking the base rules in each codex. Here are some examples:

- BRB says when a unit dies, it goes off the table. Some Tyranid units can come back.

- Necron and Inquisition units have weaponry that ignore *Invulnerable* saves.

- When a model is wounded, it is removed (from the table) as a casualty. Necron models are not removed right away, with a chance to stand up after you kill them.

- Space Marines automatically rally if no enemy unit is within six inches, no rolling required, even if below half strength (a direct "contradiction" to the way the morale/fleeing/regrouping rules work)

- Everything in that stinky Eldar codex breaks a base rule. For instance, Farseers can force you to roll psychic tests on three dice instead of two (a "contradiction" to the BRB).

 

So, since the BRB says Psychic tests are taken on two dice, should we overrule the Eldar rule? How about And They Shall Know No Fear? That rule's is contradicting a BRB rule. By the logic of some of you, we should overrule these rules. But I bet you wouldn't. <_<

 

These rules are not bullet-broof; they never will be. Sure there can be a lot of prize money/goods on the line, but fairness for the PLAYER is not the motivator. It's the amount of money they make off of selling models that is the motivator. That $200 box set costs GW so little to make that, hey, it's no skin off their back to give one away at a promotional (which we call a tournament). Don't expect the rules to always be clear cut, or you will often be disappointed. That said, of all the rules to get finicky over, this is a weird one. It does pretty clearly state "all units", and nowhere does it make mention of "vehicle units". Must be an exception to the BRB rules, as so many other codex rules are.

Oh my! Logic and common sense! :o Who let you in here? :ph34r:

 

Are you saying that when they wrote "all units" they may have actually meant all units?!! :jaw:

 

I am shocked and appalled by the sheer simplicity of it all. It can't be that easy. It just has to be a much longer and convoluted process than this in which we must reference 2/3s of the rulebook! I am sure that GW meant to give vehicles a cover save that they could not use. That makes much more sense. I am sure this is what they meant when they said the librarian gets a cover save, too, even though they know librarians can be vehicles, too! We all know GW hates Blood Angels players (why else did they give them a PDF dex?) so they must have done this just to screw with them. Make them pay points for somethign they can't possibly use! Mwahahahaha! :devil:

 

Yes yes, this makes much more sense. :)

 

 

 

 

Hopefully the sarcasm was clear, but I better say something just in case. ;)

[rat of vengence]

:)

 

RoV

[the sanguinor]

win.

[Isryion]

Just wanted to dig out this oldie but goodie since this one was decided via the FAQ today.

[gdeathlegion]

hahahaa, I was right, I was right.

 

Of course it grants a save to vehicles...geez

[Isiah]

Thanks for rounding off this topic nicely Isryion :tu:.

 

For the record Shield of Sanguinius does give a cover save to vehicles in the BA FAQ.

 

Cheers

I

[Grimtooth]

This is my sig on Dakka:

 

STORM CALLER BYPASSES THE REQUIREMENTS OF COVER AND OBSCUREMENT TO OUTRIGHT GRANT A COVER SAVE TO INFANTRY AND VEHICLES.

 

The same applied to SoS. Sadly the SW FAQ did not clearly state it as the BA codex just did. The Storm Caller entry was errata'ed to say,

Page 37, Storm Caller, replace the last sentence

with:

[…] he and all friendly units within 6" benefit

from a 5+ cover save.

 

So while it is the same as SoS, I am a proponent that you cannot apply one FAQ to another. So I will keep fighting the fight until a new SW FAQ comes out.

[JamesI]

This is my sig on Dakka:

 

STORM CALLER BYPASSES THE REQUIREMENTS OF COVER AND OBSCUREMENT TO OUTRIGHT GRANT A COVER SAVE TO INFANTRY AND VEHICLES.

 

The same applied to SoS. Sadly the SW FAQ did not clearly state it as the BA codex just did. The Storm Caller entry was errata'ed to say,

Page 37, Storm Caller, replace the last sentence

with:

[…] he and all friendly units within 6" benefit

from a 5+ cover save.

 

So while it is the same as SoS, I am a proponent that you cannot apply one FAQ to another. So I will keep fighting the fight until a new SW FAQ comes out.

Just as I saw no reason SOS did not apply to vehicles before the FAQ made it clear it did, I still think Storm Caller applies to vehicles.

[Grey Mage]

This is my sig on Dakka:

 

STORM CALLER BYPASSES THE REQUIREMENTS OF COVER AND OBSCUREMENT TO OUTRIGHT GRANT A COVER SAVE TO INFANTRY AND VEHICLES.

 

The same applied to SoS. Sadly the SW FAQ did not clearly state it as the BA codex just did. The Storm Caller entry was errata'ed to say,

Page 37, Storm Caller, replace the last sentence

with:

[…] he and all friendly units within 6" benefit

from a 5+ cover save.

 

So while it is the same as SoS, I am a proponent that you cannot apply one FAQ to another. So I will keep fighting the fight until a new SW FAQ comes out.

Just as I saw no reason SOS did not apply to vehicles before the FAQ made it clear it did, I still think Storm Caller applies to vehicles.

Agreed- and for all the same reasons.

[Grimtooth]

This is my sig on Dakka:

 

STORM CALLER BYPASSES THE REQUIREMENTS OF COVER AND OBSCUREMENT TO OUTRIGHT GRANT A COVER SAVE TO INFANTRY AND VEHICLES.

 

The same applied to SoS. Sadly the SW FAQ did not clearly state it as the BA codex just did. The Storm Caller entry was errata'ed to say,

Page 37, Storm Caller, replace the last sentence

with:

[…] he and all friendly units within 6" benefit

from a 5+ cover save.

 

So while it is the same as SoS, I am a proponent that you cannot apply one FAQ to another. So I will keep fighting the fight until a new SW FAQ comes out.

Just as I saw no reason SOS did not apply to vehicles before the FAQ made it clear it did, I still think Storm Caller applies to vehicles.

Agreed- and for all the same reasons.

 

Some idiots are still trying to argue that fine, SoS gives vehicles a cover save, but you are still not obscured. I pray to never meet one of them in a game shop for my own well being and desire to stay out of prison. LOL!!

[Mezkh]

Some idiots are still trying to argue that fine, SoS gives vehicles a cover save, but you are still not obscured. I pray to never meet one of them in a game shop for my own well being and desire to stay out of prison. LOL!!

 

Hahah, that's gold. Typical Gamesworkshop, it was never an argument over gaining a cover save, but using it. So FAQ actually changes nothing...

 

If you want clear rules GW, you should listen to what the actual problems are that arise from reading your rules and errata the actual codexes and BGB instead of putting out FAQs that are poor quality.

[Morticon]

it was never an argument over gaining a cover save, but using it. So FAQ actually changes nothing...

 

I think you just broke reason.

 

Broke it. Reason is now broken. It no longer works.

 

Dude, are you serious? Are you seriously considering arguing in any environment that you cannot use a 5+ after GW has just made this ruling? (like there was actually even an issue on this before).

[Grey Mage]

it was never an argument over gaining a cover save, but using it. So FAQ actually changes nothing...

 

I think you just broke reason.

 

Broke it. Reason is now broken. It no longer works.

 

Dude, are you serious? Are you seriously considering arguing in any environment that you cannot use a 5+ after GW has just made this ruling? (like there was actually even an issue on this before).

Morticon- his argument was illogical before this point the FAQ hasnt changed anything.

[Grimtooth]

it was never an argument over gaining a cover save, but using it. So FAQ actually changes nothing...

 

I think you just broke reason.

 

Broke it. Reason is now broken. It no longer works.

 

Dude, are you serious? Are you seriously considering arguing in any environment that you cannot use a 5+ after GW has just made this ruling? (like there was actually even an issue on this before).

Morticon- his argument was illogical before this point the FAQ hasnt changed anything.

 

Exactly.

 

Like my sig that I pointed out. If you look at the requirements to get a cover save in the BRB, SoS and Storm Caller does not fulfill them at all, for infantry, vehicles, or anything. Both abilities bypass all requirements to give a cover save and outright grant one.

[Mezkh]

Don't worry I refuse to argue this any more on this board. If pointing out that the BRB doesn't have rules for vehicles and cover saves (outside of obscured vehicles) is illogical, then that's fine. Carry on.

[Sparhawk]

And carry on we shall!

[Grey Mage]

Don't worry I refuse to argue this any more on this board. If pointing out that the BRB doesn't have rules for vehicles and cover saves (outside of obscured vehicles) is illogical, then that's fine. Carry on.

Since pointing out that codex rules provide rules for things the BRB hasnt on a regular and consistent basis seems immaterial to you, I shall carry on with gusto.

 

But, just one last time in case it sinks in: The core rules are there to be expanded upon by the codices- saying that something isnt possible because the core book doesnt specificly mention it completely goes against the reason we have codices.

[Mezkh]

Don't worry I refuse to argue this any more on this board. If pointing out that the BRB doesn't have rules for vehicles and cover saves (outside of obscured vehicles) is illogical, then that's fine. Carry on.

Since pointing out that codex rules provide rules for things the BRB hasnt on a regular and consistent basis seems immaterial to you, I shall carry on with gusto.

 

But, just one last time in case it sinks in: The core rules are there to be expanded upon by the codices- saying that something isnt possible because the core book doesnt specificly mention it completely goes against the reason we have codices.

 

So you're saying that new rules for vehicles to use cover saves against hits (outside of obscured vehicles) are provided in the Blood Angels Codex in the form of "The Librarian and any unit within 6" recieve a 5+ cover save until the end of the phase".

 

You sure read a lot from that one, very general, sentence.

[JamesI]

Don't worry I refuse to argue this any more on this board. If pointing out that the BRB doesn't have rules for vehicles and cover saves (outside of obscured vehicles) is illogical, then that's fine. Carry on.

Since pointing out that codex rules provide rules for things the BRB hasnt on a regular and consistent basis seems immaterial to you, I shall carry on with gusto.

 

But, just one last time in case it sinks in: The core rules are there to be expanded upon by the codices- saying that something isnt possible because the core book doesnt specificly mention it completely goes against the reason we have codices.

 

So you're saying that new rules for vehicles to use cover saves against hits (outside of obscured vehicles) are provided in the Blood Angels Codex in the form of "The Librarian and any unit within 6" recieve a 5+ cover save until the end of the phase".

 

You sure read a lot from that one, very general, sentence.

Less than you read into it.

 

I see a vehicle (which is a unit) gets a cover save. you see that a situation where something can have, but not legally use, a cover save. There is no other situation (baring weapons that specifically remove enemy's cover/invul/armor saves) that someone can have a save and not use it.

[Grey Mage]

Don't worry I refuse to argue this any more on this board. If pointing out that the BRB doesn't have rules for vehicles and cover saves (outside of obscured vehicles) is illogical, then that's fine. Carry on.

Since pointing out that codex rules provide rules for things the BRB hasnt on a regular and consistent basis seems immaterial to you, I shall carry on with gusto.

 

But, just one last time in case it sinks in: The core rules are there to be expanded upon by the codices- saying that something isnt possible because the core book doesnt specificly mention it completely goes against the reason we have codices.

 

So you're saying that new rules for vehicles to use cover saves against hits (outside of obscured vehicles) are provided in the Blood Angels Codex in the form of "The Librarian and any unit within 6" recieve a 5+ cover save until the end of the phase".

 

You sure read a lot from that one, very general, sentence.

Apparently from the point of view of GW Im reading in the exact right amount because they agree with me.

 

In fact, it seems very simple- unit receives save from power, unit uses received save as the dice gods allow. Not much to read in there.

 

Now, taking the example of obscured cover saves and turning them into the only way a vehicle can get cover- despite the BRB not actually ever saying that, that would be reading alot into it.

 

In fact, theres a BRB example that was already brought up in this very thread of a non-obscured cover save.