Scarab Swarms turbo boosting

[Duke Rich]

I've had many disputes about the cover save I get from my turbo boosting scarab swarms. I've always had the idea "They turbo boost, giving them a 3+ cover save, and scarabs have +1 to their cover save, so get a 2+ cover save".
Whilst most people think that they only get the 3+ cover save, as they aren't technically in cover.

Please prove the people around Salisbury GW wrong, 'cos those scarabs kick *** when people think "Oh noes look at them getting ready to hold a unit in combat for 2-3 turns!"

[Abuzorg]

There is only 3 type of saves in 40k : armor, cover and invulnerable. Turbo-boosting gives you a 3+ COVER save, and since scarabs have a +1 bonus, they do have a 2+ cover save when they turbo-boost.

[Nabterayl]

Whilst most people think that they only get the 3+ cover save, as they aren't technically in cover.
Most people where you game, maybe. I think the following chain is pretty clear:


When using their turbo-boosters ... in the following enemey Shooting phase, the [jetbike] benefits from a cover save of 3+ ... (turbo-booster USR)

All swarms have the 'stealth' ... special rule[] ... (swarms USR)

All of the unit's cover saves are improved by +1. (stealth USR)

"Being in cover" has nothing to do with the stealth USR. The rule says right on the page, "all of the unit's cover saves." It doesn't matter how the unit got that cover save in the first place.

[karandras]

Yup... I haven't had anyone try to deny me my 2+ boost save... go tell them they have it wrong mate!

[Duke Rich]

When I start using my 'Crons again I'll no doubt spend a while arguing with them all!

[Nabterayl]

What exactly is their argument? Are they suggesting that, because Stealth is named "stealth," it should only apply to situations where a cover save comes from being in cover?

[Lerra]

If they complain too loudly, just point out that there are plenty of weapons that get around the cover save and are intended as a counter to scarabs. S6 templates will pop two bases of scarabs for every wound dealt. Given that weakness, a 2+ cover from turboboosting is not cheesy at all.

[Duke Rich]

What exactly is their argument? Are they suggesting that, because Stealth is named "stealth," it should only apply to situations where a cover save comes from being in cover?

Yep, they're saying because they aren't actually in/behind anything they don't get the +1

[Nabterayl]

... wow. I mean, I believe you, but ... wow.

"All of the unit's cover saves are improved by +1" seems pretty crystal clear to me. You have a cover save? It's improved by +1!

[Lerra]

These are probably the same kind of folks who complain about getting a cover save from a demolisher canon. The whole squad may be in cover, but "it doesn't make sense that trees would help against a demolisher canon, so you shouldn't get a cover save. Well, maybe I'll give you a 5+ save because your army is painted."

It's surprising how 40k is played in some areas.

[Jwolf]

There were people who needed explanation that Blood Angels Rhinos have access and fire points, too.

[JamesP]

There were people who needed explanation that Blood Angels Rhinos have access and fire points, too.

I'm waiting for the FAQ that says Overcharged Engines let BA Rhinos get past proof readers without being checked...

:)

[The.Justinian]

Possibility:
(1)These people don't read the rulebook. As in, the sentences in the rulebook. We have this problem in America too, of people taking away an idea that's not in the text at all. Thus, we have reading comprehension tests. They imagine the rules from what they see in games, confirm the lessons that they do know when they crack the book, and never learn anything new otherwise. The idea that the sentence structure in the book matters is foreign to them...the game is a social enterprise, and its rules exist by majoritarian fiat.

(I once was in an MTG play group that thought similiarly--they believed that you could only block with one creature, and no amount of showing them the rules would convince them otherwise.)

(2) They believe (in a less severe fashion of the above) that the word choice in the rules is important...that the fact that the rule is called Stealth is salient, and that this means that you need to be hiding behind/in something to get its benefit. Of course, that's a load of bull. The mere fact that we're calling it the "Stealth USR" means it has taken on status as a proper noun and no longer can be taken at its face value. And second, simply saying something in a rules set doesn't make it so, unless you go to the trouble of writing a sentence (which does not exist) that says, "to benefit from Stealth, a model must be in area terrain or behind linear cover." In the absence of said sentence, they're imagining things.

(3) I will go ahead and blame GW. Note that I don't necessarily believe either of the below would be good for the game, but that either could solve the problem open and shut.
First, for not writing a comprehensive and legalistic version of the rules to make rulings off of. Wizards has always done this for magic, and it's one of the reasons for the continuing vitality of its organized play.
Second, for not making their employees into some kind of authoritative judge of the rules. If you're going to pay someone to live and breathe a game, the least you could do is entrust them with the ability to make a ruling in their own store as to how the rules work.

Solutions
(1) ask the GW employee to suggest a ruling (he'll probably say, "roll off to find out who is right")
(2) Tell them they're imagining things, tell them it's a game and it's not supposed to be fair, and perhaps work to get the correct answer written into the adepticon faq.

The sad story of this (perhaps) is that there are a lot of people that play 40k that are less than literate, and those among us that are fail to be kind, patient, and firm enough with the illiterate to make sure they get the rules right. (or perhaps, fail to teach why the rules are important).

Of course, GW will often say something crazy like, "the rules don't matter, go play with your dolls," which of course overturns my whole argument.

(PS I love painting, I love modeling, and I do love playing BY THE RULES with my dolls).

[Lerra]

I've noticed a lot of people don't understand that the rules are an abstraction of combat, not a simulation. They try to apply "real world" logic to game mechanics. Even if you point out the rule in the book, they will argue that the rule is wrong because it's not realistic or fluffy.

[The.Justinian]

I think the best argument against this type of dumb crap (I think this is my last post on the subject because I'm getting irate)...

Is to simply say, "Chess."
Which is to say, no one presumes any realism to the way that a bishop moves, and you've never had an argument about whether your pawn was moving stealthily when he was stabbed en passant.

ITS A GAME.
The referee in a football game never makes an RAI argument. Hoyle doesn't say that you have to look at your cards before you bet.

The only way that we can have things like tournaments, pickup games against people we don't know, without getting into fistfights, and so on is if we agree to live by THE RULES. The ones on the paper, or the ones we decide upon as a community and then finalize (adepticon faq).
__
And now to contradict myself one iota--
I think that the best way to explain this to your abstract-impaired friends is to say that the swarms get all blurry as they turbo boost...that tracking your gunsight over one nob is a lot different than trying to aim at an erratic cloud of birds (really, y'ever seen one'em?).

And by analogy, I've never heard anyone deny that the flame template or the colossus negates biker saves, even though its not a save from hiding behind anything. Tell them that if they want to get into this argument over stealthy scarabs, you'll get into that one about flaming bikes.

Really people. Really.