Shield of Sanguinius/Vehicles

[Lord Ragnarok]

My opinion is that vehicles receive it. I think we look too much into things. It says all units within 6 get a +5 cover save.

 

With respect to space wolves, our FAQ simply changed the codex wording from "it effects squads" to "it effects units".

[Hellios]

A question... was the Ork codex released in 4th or 5th ed because right now I can't remember and this is related.

[BlackSpike]

A question... was the Ork codex released in 4th or 5th ed because right now I can't remember and this is related.

 

Ork Codex was released towards the end of 4th Ed. and was written with 5th Ed. in mind.

The Kustom Force Field specifically states that Vehicles within it's area of effect are Obscured.

[Cedric]

This isn't really much of an issue, guys. Consider Codex > rulebook.

 

Codex says "any unit within 6", thereby superseding the rulebook's condition for vehicle cover.

[Hellios]

Well if I got a 6+ cover save for hiding behind some wire mesh (and so on) if I had this power going on near by would I then be able to use a 5+ for the vehicle rather than the 6+.

[stinkenheim]

yeah, you woul use the best save available, in that scenario it would be the 5+ cover save granted by the spell.

 

i believe that as vehicles are deifned as units in the BRB and the spell states that all units in range recieve a 5+ cover save then there is no reason to say that vehicles do not recieve the cover save aswell.

[Grey Mage]

Heck, if stormcaller works I dont see why this wouldnt.

[Mezkh]

I won't get into a big quote train as I find them rather rude, but to address this point:

 

Then why is their still an argument here? If its technically correct - it is by the reading of the rules, correct.

 

Because your simple argument proves they have a cover save - and the rules state the vehicle can't use it. Sorry I thought this was obvious.

 

Clearly its not - so try not to sound too condescending, yeah. You're relatively new, which means youve joined to talk about this point. We welcome the difference in opinion- as it will help get to the bottom of things one way or another, but try not to keep writing like you have been for the past few posts. Its neither humourous, helpful or nor respectful to someone thats engaging you and putting up with your posting.

 

The rules do not state you cannot use it, merely that you need to be obscured in order to do so.

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

 

Your entire argument rests on one point. That you need to be obscured to take a cover save. Ive shown why this is not true. You say they cant use their cover save because a cover save is a product of being obscured. However, as mentioned many times - that doesnt matter as the BA codex rule allows you cut straight to the product and not worry about the prerequisite.

 

I think you took my post as more sarcastic than it was intended. I'm genuinely trying to explain my position without causing offense, difficult as we do have a different perspective on this.

 

To try a different approach, given you are making a claim and need to support the claim with proof, It think it would help if you could show where in the rules it allows vehicles to use cover saves, because by the rules this is forbidden. We've covered many times that you've said "the codex rule supersedes the prerequisite", but all the codex rule says is "units within 6" gain a 5+ cover save". That's all well and good, but for vehicle units, it's useless to them, because they can't use it.

 

Breaking this down.

 

Premise 1: Librarian and units within 6" of Shield of Sanguinius receive 5+ cover.

Premise 2: Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry.

Conclusion: The vehicle has received a 5+ cover save from SoS, but the rules forbid us from using it/the rules don't tell us how to use it.

 

Note that premise 1 does not override or supersede premise 2 in any way, (codex supersedes rulebook) because it does not contradict or except anything stated in premise 2.

 

P1 tells us who has X if a condition is fulfilled. P2 tells us who or what is allowed to useX, or in this case who can't use X.

 

Additionally, if read further neither the rulebook or the Blood Angel Codex tell us rules for how we could use cover saves for vehicles, even if we wanted to ignore P2. Therefore if you don't accept the above argument, and you don't want to make up rules, please show where we could find the rules necessary for how vehicles do use cover saves they are granted by wargear/a special rule.

 

To help, we're told how cover saves can be used against wounds in the shooting phase, and we're told what to do if Vehicle targets are obscured on page 62. That's insufficient as

 

Vehicles suffer hits, not wounds,

Shield doesn't obscure vehicles.

 

The same applies to stormcaller, Space wolf vehicles gain a cover save they can't use. As noted, a similar rule or power that DOES benefit vehicles is the Ork Kustom Force Field, because it specifically states that Vehicles within it's area of effect are Obscured.

 

By giving the people who check the rules some credit, if they really did intend for vehicles to benefit from Shield, it would have been very easy to add in the required text "additionally, vehicles count as being obscured", exactly the same as KFF and we wouldn't be having this argument :)

Also note how exceptionally good a 5+ AoE save against hits is for vehicles that doesn't require a drawback like no shooting (smoke, skimmers moving flat out). The maxim "If it's too good to be true, it probably is" comes to mind.

[Ashe Darke]

It is clear the rules for vehicles gaining cover in the BRB are to do with gaining a cover save from terrain as this the conventional way of gaining a cover save. This is not the only way for a vehicle to gain a cover save however.

 

The codex supersedes the ruling in the codex anyway, just as the Storm Raven rules supersedes the whole 'units cannot disembark if it moved more than 12 inches' rule.

 

And in the case of the KFF it says it is obscured as it intentionally has different rules. The person who wrote it probably wanted it to be a 4+ instead of a 5+, and it was written at the end of 4th Ed so it probably needed to be compatible with both editions. The obscured save also changes dependant on the POV of the firer as it is possible for it to only gain a 6+ save by hiding behind a huge mound of razor wire. Again this was probably intentional.

[Mezkh]

One last question for you then Mezkh ->

 

 

* In order to get option B, condition A must be met.

 

* Ability X gives us option B.

 

 

Why do I suddenly need to care as to what condition A is if ability X automatically grants option B ?

 

Sorry I missed this,

 

You don't need to care what condition A is, but this is misrepresenting what the argument is.

 

Ability X gives us(vehicles) option B

Rulebook R tells us we can't use option B, or provides no instructions to do so.

 

Therefore option B is N/A and/or useless to us.

[Mezkh]

It is clear the rules for vehicles gaining cover in the BRB are to do with gaining a cover save from terrain as this the conventional way of gaining a cover save. This is not the only way for a vehicle to gain a cover save however.

 

The codex supersedes the ruling in the codex anyway, just as the Storm Raven rules supersedes the whole 'units cannot disembark if it moved more than 12 inches' rule.

 

And in the case of the KFF it says it is obscured as it intentionally has different rules. The person who wrote it probably wanted it to be a 4+ instead of a 5+, and it was written at the end of 4th Ed so it probably needed to be compatible with both editions. The obscured save also changes dependant on the POV of the firer as it is possible for it to only gain a 6+ save by hiding behind a huge mound of razor wire. Again this was probably intentional.

 

Hello Ashe :) ,

 

This is not the only way for a vehicle to gain a cover save however.

 

I can't argue they don't gain a cover save by the Shield rule, but the rules do state they can't use cover saves unless obscured.

 

I feel you'd have to address these points from the rules in respect to your argument:

 

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry"

 

"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 around"

 

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

 

"but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save. "

[Cedric]

One last question for you then Mezkh ->

 

 

* In order to get option B, condition A must be met.

 

* Ability X gives us option B.

 

 

Why do I suddenly need to care as to what condition A is if ability X automatically grants option B ?

 

Sorry I missed this,

 

You don't need to care what condition A is, but this is misrepresenting what the argument is.

 

Ability X gives us(vehicles) option B

Rulebook R tells us we can't use option B, or provides no instructions to do so.

 

Therefore option B is N/A and/or useless to us.

 

I'll repeat myself....

 

This isn't really much of an issue, guys. Consider Codex > rulebook.

 

Codex says "any unit within 6", thereby superseding the rulebook's condition for vehicle cover.

 

Therefore, ability X gives option B and, by coming from the codex, overrules R.

[Mezkh]

I'll repeat myself....

 

This isn't really much of an issue, guys. Consider Codex > rulebook.

 

Codex says "any unit within 6", thereby superseding the rulebook's condition for vehicle cover.

 

Therefore, ability X gives option B and, by coming from the codex, overrules R.

 

To repeat as well, having something is not the same as using something.

 

Example, The law (in my area) states I'm not permitted to walk into the street and discharge a firearm.

 

If the blood angels codex knocks on my door and gives me a firearm, I now have a firearm, but, I'm still not allowed to walk into the street and discharge that firearm.

[Ashe Darke]

So if it said 'they get a cover save regardless of other criteria' you would be happy?

 

I don't know why wounds were brought into this but looking at the cover saves section it doesn't mention what happens just that you need to pass it. In the removing casualties section it does mention what happens when you fail a save though 'For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound'. So does that mean that an unsuccessful save on a penetrating hit gets turned into an unsaved wound which has no effect on a vehicle as it has no wounds?

 

As for what you want me to address.

 

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry"

Yep they don't, but that doesn't mean they can't gain cover saves in methods not mentioned that infantry are also eligible to receive. So for example 'vehicles and infantry both get cover from SoS but a vehicle doesn't get a save from being in area terrain'. They both can get a save from SoS while still meeting holding true to them not gaining cover saves in the same way. It doesn't say they can never gain cover in the same way, ever. Plus it talking about cover saves gained from terrain.

 

"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 around"

Well that talks about the obscured cover save, we are talking about a cover save that has not come from being obscured.

 

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

This just covers what happens when there is no intervening terrain as the terrain dictates the roll of the save. It just so happens that most of the terrain gives a 4+ save, but like I said if a vehicle is obscured behind a hedge then it would only be a 5+ save.

 

"but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save. "

Again this talking about being obscured via smoke launchers and there are other ways to gain a save. The rule book makes no mention about saves from wargear as there wasn't anything in any of the codexes at this point to do so. Without using any special codex rules the only way to get a cover save is to hide behind terrain or pop smoke and so that's what they cover.

 

The rules do not cover every eventuality and there are times when you must use your best guess to fill in the blanks, like my point above, I've not found where it talks about what happens with passed/failed cover save on vehicles stopping/allowing the shot(s), it only talks about wounds. But it makes sense that that is how it works rather than 'stopping the wound' or 'taking an unsaved wound'.

[Mezkh]

Thanks for your well thought out reply,

 

So if it said 'they get a cover save regardless of other criteria' you would be happy?

 

I don't know why wounds were brought into this but looking at the cover saves section it doesn't mention what happens just that you need to pass it. In the removing casualties section it does mention what happens when you fail a save though 'For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound'. So does that mean that an unsuccessful save on a penetrating hit gets turned into an unsaved wound which has no effect on a vehicle as it has no wounds?

 

I would be happy if it stated something like "they receive a cover save, and vehicles may use this cover save against glancing and penetrating hits exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against wounds. For every successful glancing/penetrating hit roll a die and on a 5+ the hit is discarded with no effect"

 

Or more in in keeping with the rules already provided for the special obscured status exception: "Vehicles also count as obscured, gaining a 5+ cover save (against glancing/pentrating hits)"

 

 

"Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry"

Yep they don't, but that doesn't mean they can't gain cover saves in methods not mentioned that infantry are also eligible to receive. So for example 'vehicles and infantry both get cover from SoS but a vehicle doesn't get a save from being in area terrain'. They both can get a save from SoS while still meeting holding true to them not gaining cover saves in the same way.

 

 

"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 around"

Well that talks about the obscured cover save, we are talking about a cover save that has not come from being obscured.

 

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

This just covers what happens when there is no intervening terrain as the terrain dictates the roll of the save. It just so happens that most of the terrain gives a 4+ save, but like I said if a vehicle is obscured behind a hedge then it would only be a 5+ save.

 

"but will count as obscured in the next enemy Shooting phase, receiving a 4+ cover save. "

Again this talking about being obscured via smoke launchers and there are other ways to gain a save. The rule book makes no mention about saves from wargear as there wasn't anything in any of the codexes at this point to do so. Without using any special codex rules the only way to get a cover save is to hide behind terrain or pop smoke and so that's what they cover.

 

The rules do not cover every eventuality and there are times when you must use your best guess to fill in the blanks, like my point above, I've not found where it talks about what happens with passed/failed cover save on vehicles stopping/allowing the shot(s), it only talks about wounds. But it makes sense that that is how it works rather than 'stopping the wound' or 'taking an unsaved wound'.

 

 

 

I think this is a matter to agree to disagree. I see the rules as a permissive, to use something, you have to be given permission for it. The rules state vehicles don't benefit from cover, and the rules we are given for cover saves only work on wounds, and so they're N/A to vehicles (unless your vehicle suffers a wound!). The rules define a specific obscured status exception to the normal rules, and a process to follow which can be used to save against hits. A rules convention is then established where Smoke, Flat out, etc all then refer to this specific obscured status, which provides rules that allow vehicles to save against hits.

 

Standard cover saves by the rules are used for saving wounds

 

So they are useless for vehicles...?

 

I accept there are times where we use some degree of interpretation, but I'd see the allowing of vehicles to use regular cover saves against hits as a 'bridge too far'.

[Ashe Darke]

I can see your point about there being a structure to vehicle cover saves and it's something that should be tidied up, but this also comes down to how thorough the person writing the codex is.

 

Matt Ward is not brilliant for covering all eventualities and wording things water tight. Where as someone like Cruddace is very good and clear, take area effects from models for example. He exclusively states that the model itself gains the benefits. Matt Ward has Corbulo not getting FNP when on his own, whether it is intentional or not it is not clear but it's kinda stupid.

 

So as you can see some writers are more thorough when it comes to writing a book that works with the BRB than others as they probably didn't think about it. The books that do talk about obscured though are both written during 4th Ed and so were probably meeting some criteria in 4th Ed.

 

I didn't see the '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' bit but now I've found it and read it so I can address it properly. Again I think this bit is only dealing with terrain/smoke saves which can only be obscured saves. It is an oversight on their behalf to not have thought 'hmm we might want to cover saves from wargear that might appear in future codexes'. They should have amended this in an errata or by putting what you said in the codexes but to be honest I doubt they thought about it that much. But as it says on pg 2 of the BRB the book itself is more of a guideline and if you can both agree it's an oversight then that is fine. Is it that far fetched that the non-obscured cover save would use the 'it gets ignored if passed' ruling that the obscured ones get. The rules don't mention anything about multiple initiative value units and hit & run. Does that mean they can't do it as it doesn't say what value to use?

 

Besides, a 5+ cover save really isn't that great. I have enough trouble passing my 4+ cover saves. B)

[Isiah]

Interesting topic. I don't yet own a BA dex, but reading the quoted passage at the topic's start:

 

"[...] any units within 6" receive a 5+ cover save until the end of the phase." [Codex BA p63].

 

It seems to me that by RAW, if any units within 6" can receive a cover save then this must be taken at face value. We know that under normal circumstances vehicles only get cover saves from being obscured – however the Codex is giving us a new rule to override that by stating "any unit", and, vehicles are not being excluded. As long as something is a "unit" [a vehicle is] and has the ability to make a "cover save" of some description [a vehicle can], then it qualifies as benefitting from this special rule.

 

In all cases the rules within any one Codex override those within the main BRB. So, if a Codex tells us we must do X, even though the BRB says Y (or even nothing :)), then we must do X.

 

So personally I see no reason why vehicles should not receive this "special" wargear-derived cover save... and use it... even if in the open *gasp*.

 

Cheers

I

[Ashe Darke]

Mezkh's point, which it took me a few posts to realise, is that only the obscured cover save mentions the fact that on a pass nothing happens and that a fail results in a roll on the damage chart. Sorry if anyone knew this already but I felt a nice summary would be handy at this point.

 

So what SoS does is give a cover save which isn't quite the same as the obscured one. So we look up cover saves which isn't helpful. Then we look at removing casualties where we get to what actually happens when you fail a save. It talks about wounds and isn't helpful and RAW nothing happens either way as if it fails it takes an unsaved wound which can't affect it or a pass means which it doesn't take a wound, again has no effect. This is actually a pretty awesome cover save.

 

The wording on the part that explains what happens with the vehicle cover save is badly worded and sounds pretty much exclusive to obscured although as I have pointed out I'm pretty sure this is because the only examples they have are terrain and smoke which can only offer obscured. This is similar to the whole 'only powerfists, chainfists etc are special weapons' thing. They're not, they're just universal and so are the examples used.

 

As for the codex overriding the rulebook I don't think it actually comes in to this, the rulebook doesn't say it can't get a save, the codex grants it something that isn't worded for vehicles which is where the problem arises and common sense should be used.

 

I don't think it's too much of a stretch for the non-obscured saves to use the same ruling though. But if people are insisting on having it the other way where I can't be hurt by shooting attacks that don't deny cover that's fine with me :P

[Isiah]

Mezkh's point, which it took me a few posts to realise, is that only the obscured cover save mentions the fact that on a pass nothing happens and that a fail results in a roll on the damage chart.

 

Yes that's right. I'm not sure what the problem is. Humour me and explain the issue more slowly... ...or is it an issue with what cover save mechanics the vehicle should implement?

 

ie throw a 5+ to allow vehicle to ignore glance or pen hits (similar to being obscured)?

 

And yes the Codex precedence thing is important as it sets out (in this instance) how a vehicle can get a cover save other than being obscured. This is critical as obscured is something that using smoke or being flat out both reference for instance when talking about vehicle saves.

 

Is all this coming down to the fact that SoS doesn't mention "obscured" in its wording?

[Ashe Darke]

Ok page 62 says this.

 

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 would do against a wound (it gives some examples). If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage chart.

 

His point all comes down to the first 5 words 'If the target is obscured'. So only by meeting that criteria does the save use the vehicle's results for a cover save i.e. 'If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage chart.'

 

Now a vehicle that has been granted a cover save by something like SoS is just a normal cover save, it's not obscured. It does not meet the criteria of being obscured so does not do the whole ignore if passed thing.

 

Ok so we can't use that as we aren't eligible. So now we have a cover save that isn't 'ignored if passed', so we'd better see what our cover save means. The bit on cover saves talks about what each bit of terrain offers but not what happens if you pass or fail. The only bit that has any relevance is in the 'Removing Casualties' section in the saves part which as I've said talks about wounds, but seen as it says 'the unit takes an unsaved wound' the tank is eligible for this unsaved wound that does nothing.

 

It all hinges on being very strict about the 'If' at the start and taking it to be a very exclusive thing as no where else does it say what happens with a passed/failed cover save for a vehicle.

 

EDIT: To answer your edit, pretty much. Regarding the codex precedence, it grants you a cover save. No problem there, there's an entry for that in the rule book, there's no contradiction going on. But when we look at the entry it's not relevant due to the strict criteria meaning it uses the infantry cover save instead of the vehicle. By saying the vehicle is obscured and gets X+ cover save they would then be able to use the ruling for vehicle cover saves as outlined on pg62. Whether things like SoS not mentioning vehicles being obscured was intentional or an oversight I don't know.

[rat of vengence]

To try a different approach, given you are making a claim and need to support the claim with proof, It think it would help if you could show where in the rules it allows vehicles to use cover saves, because by the rules this is forbidden. We've covered many times that you've said "the codex rule supersedes the prerequisite", but all the codex rule says is "units within 6" gain a 5+ cover save". That's all well and good, but for vehicle units, it's useless to them, because they can't use it.

Mate, where in the special rule does it discriminate between units? Does it refer to just 'infantry'? No. It says units. It says they get a cover save. It really is as simple as that. It bypasses any mechanic needed in the BGB, and goes straight to 5+ cover save. Besides, it obviously bypasses what infantry need to gain a cover save, why shouldn't it for vehicles? You are applying different standards for the same situation here; the Codex says 'units' get the 5+.

 

RoV

[Ashe Darke]

He really isn't saying they don't get a 5+ cover save. It's the result of that dice roll is what his point comes down to.

 

The only part in the BRB that says if you pass the test don't roll on the damage chart is on pg 62. This says 'if the vehicle is obscured' so in order for it to follow that you need to be obscured which if you're trying to get a 5+ cover save probably means you're not.

 

The only other part that talks about cover saves is the cover saves for infantry which talks about wounds, this is his point. Without being obscured the only cover save a vehicle can get from something like SoS is one which talks about wounds which doesn't affect vehicles.

 

In order to understand his point you really need to forget what you think you know about passing/failing a cover save and actually look it up.

 

That said I'd say they get the save, it's an oversight that makes the vehicles very resilient to shooting attacks as it can't suffer wounds. It's like my whole thing about vehicles not being able to be hit on the first turn. It's a stupid gap and common sense should take place.

[Mordekiem]

If you are using the argument that vehicles don't get a cover save then wouldn't it follow that the infantry units don't get a cover save too?

 

The BRB says for an infantry model to get a cover save they have to meet certain requirements, too, none of which are met by the power.

 

Sounds like GW gave BA a totally useless power!!!11!1eleven1!

 

;)

[Mezkh]

If you are using the argument that vehicles don't get a cover save then wouldn't it follow that the infantry units don't get a cover save too?

 

The BRB says for an infantry model to get a cover save they have to meet certain requirements, too, none of which are met by the power.

 

Sounds like GW gave BA a totally useless power!!!11!1eleven1!

 

;)

 

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

 

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!

 

The key paragraph that explains the rules for vehicles and cover that we do know begins 'if the target is obscured'. Because our tank isn't obscured, we ignore that paragraph. And...no where else does it say how a vehicle can use a cover save.

 

Like Ashe says, a good idea is to forget everything you think you know about cover saves, or imagine you're showing a friend the game.

 

The shooting phase gives us the good old hit-wound-savingthrows mechanic.

 

For vehicles,

 

- Check range

- Roll to hit.

- Check vehicle facing

- Add D6 to strength and check penetration

- Check if vehicle is obscured.

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

- Check and apply damage result.

 

Presuming an example vehicle is not obscured, where in the above process do we have permission in the rules to roll a cover save for our vehicle and discard a damage result?

 

Now I can definitely respect Ashe's POV that it's a GW oversight not to include permission for vehicles to use cover saves, I don't myself, or if I think there is an oversight it's one of failure to clarify that vehicles don't benefit in any way from 'normal' cover saves. To support this, it does state 'Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry' and the differences on page 62 are IMO not an exhaustive list. Also to support, we do have a perfectly good obscured mechanic, and a similar power in a codex that was written for 5th edition which makes use of that mechanic (KFF)

 

I don't think if you follow the above process argument through it makes vehicles suffer wounds instead of damage. The 5+ cover save from Shield of Sanguinius is never rolled at any point (no permission), so we don't 'switch over' to applying wounds against vehicles instead of damage.

[Cedric]

If you are using the argument that vehicles don't get a cover save then wouldn't it follow that the infantry units don't get a cover save too?

 

The BRB says for an infantry model to get a cover save they have to meet certain requirements, too, none of which are met by the power.

 

Sounds like GW gave BA a totally useless power!!!11!1eleven1!

 

;)

 

This is an excellent argument.

 

The power doesn't say that infantry are counted as obscured either. Or in terrain. They simply get a cover save out of nowhere due to the power.

Normally infantry have armour saves, cover saves ened special conditions in order to be applicable. These conditions are lifted, however, by the power.

For both vehicles and infantry alike.