Potential Solid Answer to Storm Caller/Vehicles

[Decoy]

I know this topic has been done to death, but at a game recently, I came across one of those gits who insisted that Storm Caller's save didn't apply to vehicles because of the wording of the rules that saves only apply against wounds, and cannot be taken by a vehicle, since Vehicles do not have wounds to save. This got me digging (after conceding the point to him for the sake of expediency... I still codwalloped him, for what it's worth...) into the rules, and in a bit of a random flip of the page, I found a point that may have answered the solution to this often RAW-argued concept. What I'd like is for anyone here to prove me wrong, preferably with rules citations and page numbers. Anyone up for the challenge?

 

We can fairly accurately establish that Storm Caller grants all units within 6" a 5+ cover save. Units, by definition of the rulebook, include Vehicles, as Vehicles are often treated as units of one model (barring Guard, of course.) However, the current standing RAW interpretation is that vehicles may not use a save, even if they have one, because saves are (in current belief) only used against weaponsfire that causes wounds. Seeing as a vehicle does not have wounds, this disallows Vehicles from using Cover Saves unless they are Obscured, a status that Storm Caller does not grant. However, I believe that this might be the wrong sort of thinking, not only from RAI, but in direct RAW interpretation.

 

 

In the section describing cover saves for vehicles (P.62), the second paragraph on the page states that...

 

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

 

The differences are listed in three nicely ordered bullet points, like so:

 

*At least 50% of the facing...

 

*Vehicles are not obscured...

 

*Obviously, vehicles cannot go...

 

In these bulleted points, there is no mention of an inability to take a cover save, nor is there mentioned an ability -to- take a cover save. The bulleted points are the listed differences in how cover saves work. There is no change in how cover saves work, nor is there any writing detailing that vehicles must be obscured in order to make a cover save. With the end of the bulleted points, the section regarding how vehicle cover saves are different is ended. This ceases any clarification as to how cover saves work with Vehicles: Other than in these three bulleted points, cover saves work as normal.

 

 

Immediately following the bulleted points, but independent of the bulleted list, the rulebook describes the situation regarding when a vehicle is obscured, and what effect this has upon it's cover save. (I'm not about to quote the passage, what it says is irrelevant.) That paragraph is often touted as the be-all, end-all description of why Cover Saves do not apply to vehicles without obscurement. The statement declares,

"If the target is obscured... it may take a cover save against [a penetrating or glancing hit]."

RAW-based arguments, up until this point, have insisted that in this description of obscurement, the rules are directly stating that a vehicle may only take a cover save if it is obscured. However, I believe that this stems from misunderstandings regarding the rules exceptions in the bulleted list quoted above. This passage is not a part of the "exceptions", but rather, an independent thought regarding obscured status and its effects on cover saves. The two do not correlate, and are completely independent from one another: the status of Obscure merely grants a cover save, it does not regulate or moderate the granting (or revoking) of the ability of a unit to make a cover save. This is verified by the semantic writing of the rules:

 

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

 

The quote, as described above, is often misinterpreted as the following: "A vehicle may take a cover save if the target is obscured...". However, that is a blatant manipulation of the wording and in fact is in direct conflict with the semantic analysis of the quote at hand. Said analysis is as follows. "If the target is obscured..." (read; If, under any circumstance, the target vehicle meets the status qualification of "obscured")..."it may take a cover save against it" (read; the vehicle is allowed to roll a cover save "against it")... "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound." (Read; Pretty much as it says.)

 

This statement is no descriptor of Cover Saves for vehicles, nor does it limit what types of save a vehicle may use. It establishes the status of Obscurement, and what effect that status has on the Cover Save of the vehicle. Moreover, it describes the process in which a vehicle's Cover Save may be used, "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound."

 

 

So what we've established up to this point is the following:

 

*If a vehicle is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, the vehicle may make a Cover Save against said hit.

*A vehicle's cover save is used against any glancing or penetrating hit, exactly as a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.

*The description of "vehicle obscured" status is not a vehicle-specific modification of the rules; instead, it is it's own separate rules entry.

 

 

So. If a vehicle is NOT obscured, then how can it attain a Cover Save? I ask you to turn to a relatively unknown page and overlooked entry, Page 24, "Maximum Save", middle of the page.

 

Some models may gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. A roll of 1 always fails."

 

This, it seems, is the case that pertains to Storm Caller. Storm Caller grants "any unit within 6"... "a 5+ Cover Save". This, then, would fall under "additional benefits" of the Maximum Save rule, meaning that... And this is somewhat key...

 

 

WITHOUT the status of Concealment, a unit can receive a Cover Saving Throw if certain models gain additional benefit from certain rules.

 

 

This applies to both Storm Caller and Bjorn's Invulnerable Save, since these rules are certainly the beneficiaries of "Additional benefit" from their special rules. This is the allowance that grants an additional save to "some models" based on "rules that may increase any of their saves."

 

So here we are, at the crux of the issue. The following is now the case that we're working with:

 

*If a vehicle is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, the vehicle may make a Cover Save against said hit.

*A vehicle's cover save is used against any glancing or penetrating hit, exactly as a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.

*The description of "vehicle obscured" status is not a vehicle-specific modification of the rules; instead, it is it's own separate rules entry.

*A cover save can be granted to vehicles by application of "rules that may increase any of their saves".

*Cover Saves are a granted status, and the vehicle needn't always be in cover to receive a cover save.

 

It has been established that Vehicles -can- have Cover Saves.

The procedure for Vehicle Cover Saves against glancing or penetrating hits has been established; "Exactly as a non-vehicle model would do against a wound"

It has been established that Vehicles can receive Cover Saves (among other types) from other rules that allow such.

It has been established that "Vehicle Obscured"-based arguments are not a part of vehicle revision, but are their own rules.

It has been established that Cover Saves need not be granted solely by Cover, but can be granted by ability and rules, allowing for a Cover Save without actually being in cover.

 

With this, we can put together the following picture.

 

A vehicle has Storm Caller cast on it. Obscured status holds no bearing, as the vehicle is not obscured. The vehicle now has a 5+ Cover Save against Penetrating or Glancing Hits, savable exactly as a non-vehicle would do against a wound. Moreover, this Cover Save is legal even if the vehicle is not in cover, or otherwise Obscured.

 

 

 

Anyone care to take a shot at killing this analysis?

[Legatus]

Why wouldn't a vehicle be allowed to use a cover save?

 

My vehicles use cover saves all the time. There is a section in the rulebook explaining how cover saves for vehicles work. Smoke Launchers would become sort of redundant if vehicles were not allowerd to make a cover save. Skimmers suddenly would be a lot more fragile.

 

So, where is this notion coming from that vehicles can not use cover saves?

[Grey Mage]

Some misguided individuals make the argument that a vehicle may be granted a cover save but be unable to use it unless they are obscured.

[Tanhausen]

Veeery long post, only sped-read.

 

DA apothecaries had the same issue: if a model failed a save (be it armour, invul o cover), the apo simply shrugged it. Now with the new FAQ and FnP, no more discussion.

 

So yes, if the vehicle is obscure it gets a COVER SAVE.

 

Just like you get with the Mek or the BA libby.

[Legatus]

The thing is that the Storm Caller will not make the vehicle count as obscured. It will simply give the vehicle a 5+ cover save. Much like how nearby infantry will get a cover save even if they are not actually in or behind cover.

[Decoy]

I believe some may be misunderstanding my intent in posting this. Let me clarify.

 

There has long been a subsect of RAW-based argument that insists that Vehicles under the Storm Caller power (or Bjorn, with his 5+ Invulnerable, for that matter) are unable to use their given saves because "Saves", as defined by some RAW purists, may only be taken against "Wounds", which cannot be caused to a vehicle.

 

This post is an attempt to conclusively and decisively end that argument based on a purely RAW analysis.

 

I, personally, have always allowed (and used) Stormcaller on vehicles as I believe it was meant to be played.

[Seahawk]

"Saves", as defined by some RAW purists, may only be taken against "Wounds"

Then how would vehicles EVER receive/use Cover Saves as defined by the Vehicle Cover Saves section? They wouldn't, so that argument has no value at all.

[Grey Mage]

The argument hinged on the difficulty of finding a save in the core book that didnt come from being obscured, wich in turn led some people to believe that it couldnt be used unless the vehicle was obscured.

 

There are a number of place the core rulebook doesnt go to but is not restrictive on either.

[Legatus]

There has long been a subsect of RAW-based argument that insists that Vehicles under the Storm Caller power (or Bjorn, with his 5+ Invulnerable, for that matter) are unable to use their given saves because "Saves", as defined by some RAW purists, may only be taken against "Wounds", which cannot be caused to a vehicle.

"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 the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table."

(Rulebook, page 62)

 

Maybe the "RAW purist" can explain the meaning of that statement then?

 

Or you may want to make him aware of this introduction to the basic rules on 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, because these are by far the most common unit type in the game."

 

Infantry suffer wounds. So the saves described in their rules will naturally protect against wounds.

 

But I cannot really see where it says that "saves" are defined as something that is used against "wounds". What statement would that be?

[Decoy]

But I cannot really see where it says that "saves" are defined as something that is used against "wounds". What statement would that be?

 

That'd be under "Armor Saves", P20, "... it is allowed a further dice roll to see if the armor stops it being wounded.", I think. I'm unfamiliar with the argument AGAINST cover saves, if only because it borders on absurdity and blatant attempts to revise reality and the English language to function.

[Seahawk]

The argument hinged on the difficulty of finding a save in the core book that didnt come from being obscured, wich in turn led some people to believe that it couldnt be used unless the vehicle was obscured.

I remember, and here's my take. Infantry units can gain cover saves despite being "not in cover" through various special rules, the main one being Going to Ground. Why can't vehicles do the same? Surely, if an infantry unit is not in cover, they cannot use a cover save no matter how it's gained? Unless I'm mistaken, the argument is the same (just swap "in cover" with "obscured"), which still makes it invalid.

[Legatus]

But I cannot really see where it says that "saves" are defined as something that is used against "wounds". What statement would that be?

 

That'd be under "Armor Saves", P20, "... it is allowed a further dice roll to see if the armor stops it being wounded.", I think. I'm unfamiliar with the argument AGAINST cover saves, if only because it borders on absurdity and blatant attempts to revise reality and the English language to function.

As you already noticed, that statement refers to armour saves, which vehicles generally do not have. But even if GW suddenly started handing our "armour saves" to vehicles, that would still fall under the "the shooting rules are written specifically for infantry, and the way vehicles are different is described later" clause from page 4.

[Decoy]

As you already noticed, that statement refers to armour saves, which vehicles generally do not have. But even if GW suddenly started handing our "armour saves" to vehicles, that would still fall under the "the shooting rules are written specifically for infantry, and the way vehicles are different is described later" clause from page 4.

 

I agree with your sentiment, and I honestly never really followed the means by which RAW folks attempted to justify this. I think their line of thought is "The only evidence we have is in Armor Saves". Irrational folk, RAW purists.

[Legatus]

But that's not RAW. They are interpreting the statements incorrectly.

[Brother Valerius]

Exactly. These people aren't RAW purists, they're just plain wrong. RAW is against them, not the other way around.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

aren't Storm caller and Shield worded identically? And if so wouldnt these two FAQ answers cover it?

 

Page 37 – Storm Caller

Replace the last sentence with: “[…] he and all friendly

units within 6" benefit from a 5+ cover save”.

 

Q: Do vehicles gain a cover save from Shield of

Sanguinius? (p63)

A: Yes.

[stinkenheim]

Iirc the initial counter argument to storm caller giving vehicles a cover save was that every instance in the BRB spoke about the vehicle being obscured. Much like how a custom force field states that vehicles count as obscured.

It was then argued that although technically the vehicle could have a cover save, as it wasn't obscured it would never be able to make use of it.

 

With Bjorn, the argument was that armour/invulnerable saves coils only be used against wounds suffers by the model. As Bjorn is a vehicle and therefore has no wounds profile he could never attempt to make his invulnerable save because he would never suffer a wound.

 

Frankly both seem ridiculous attempts at rules lawyering and would generally be net with laughter in most gaming groups I have played in.

I realise I may have paraphrased (and badly at that) some of the points but they were the contentious issues as I recall.

[Legatus]

Iirc the initial counter argument to storm caller giving vehicles a cover save was that every instance in the BRB spoke about the vehicle being obscured.

Yes, vehicles that are obscured get a cover save. Just how infantry that is obscured gets a cover save.

 

"When are models in cover?

When any part of the target model's body (...) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."

(BRB. p. 21)

 

There are other means for infantry to claim to be in cover, such as standing in area terrain. But the common principle is that when a model is obscured by terrain, then it is in cover and can make a cover save. Vehicles need to be obscured for at least 50% to be allowed to claim to be in cover and get the cover save.

 

Infantry that is not in cover does not get a cover save.

 

Vehicles that are not in cover do not get a cover save.

 

--> There are items that convey a cover save to models that are not actually currently in cover.

 

 

With Bjorn, the argument was that armour/invulnerable saves coils only be used against wounds suffers by the model. As Bjorn is a vehicle and therefore has no wounds profile he could never attempt to make his invulnerable save because he would never suffer a wound.

"bjorn has a 5+ invulnerable saving throw against any glancing or penetrating hit inflicted upon him."

(C:SW, p. 49)

 

I don't think that can be misunderstood.

 

 

I know these are not your claims, and I know these may not have been the actual arguments, so it may not be helpful at all. But I find it difficult to let such claims stand.

[Seahawk]

No-one had addressed what I brought up except Legatus, that:

 

Infantry that is not in cover does not get a cover save.

but

--> There are items that convey a cover save to models that are not actually currently in cover

and they get to make a saving throw for that "given" save. So again, why not vehicles? Any other interpretation is still just as wrong before, and disproved by the BRB.

[Grimtooth]

The thing is that Storm Caller bypasses the requirements of granting a cover save to both vehicles and infantry, and outright grants a save.

 

Read the rules for what conveys a cover save. Storm Caller and even Shield of Sang outright grant a cover save despite not meeting the requirements stated for giving a cover save. That is how the powers work. That is how they grant cover saves to both vehicles and infantry. They bypass the obscured requirement and outright grant a cover save.