Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Question #1: Do models get cover saves against Deffrolla hits caused by tank shocking? Rules quote or something to use for future reference appreciated.


Question #2: I realize this was 4th or 3rd edition or something (before I started 40k), but in a scenario with an attacker and a defender, does the attacker go first by default unless the initiative is stolen?

#1: Not sure, Skimmers get to dodge though.
Knowing GW its probably not covered by RAW, depends on the phrasing of cover saves I guess (IE: If cover saves state they work against shooting attacks, then no; but if they say they work against all attacks except Assault, then yes.)
Don't have rule book with me atm, so can't confirm this

#2: As far as I can recall Attackers always go first yes, and I'm not sure if Stealing the Initiative was even a rule in 3rd/4th

#1 no, you only get cover saves from shooting attacks and tank shock is done in the movement phase.

#2 i have no clue. i started in 5th edition.

#1: Instead of having us prove they wouldn't get a cover save, have them show where they WOULD get a cover save. I must say I have heard lots of sketchy rule arguments but never heard someone attempt to claim cover from a Deffrolla.

I think the simplest thing is "do you get a cover save from a RAM?" Which means while skimmers may dodge, no one gets cover.

#2: Pretty sure there was no such thing as steal the initiative in previous editions.

Emporer Penguin wrote:#1 no, you only get cover saves from shooting attacks and tank shock is done in the movement phase.

You can get cover saves from non-shooting attacks- the Doom of Malantai allows cover saves from it's non-shooting non-attack (with no way to determine how to claim cover, of course). With no firer, you'd be limited to an area terrain cover save. The same would presumably be true of Deffrollas, Gets Hot!, bosspoles, etc.

There is just as much of an argument for cover saves as there is for no saves at all.

The shooting section details how when you are shot at you allocate wounds and then get to make either and armour, invulnerable, or cover save.

The assault section has a bit about taking saves. It says that you use the rules covered in the shooting section with the exception that cover saves aren't allowed.

Since the deffrolla is neither a shot as describe in the shooting section or a close combat attack as per the assault section there are no rules to cover what types of saves you get. Of course there are no rules on how to allocate wounds and remove casualties either.


The cc section references the shooting section for it's wound allocation and saves so the logical thing to do would be reference those rules. Then since you don't have anything that prevents cover saves you would be allowed to take them. You would probably be restricted to saves from area terrain or a power like the KFF since drawing LOS from to models that are touching would be very easy.

This does seem silly and I would wager most people would play with no cover saves, but it does seem like RAW you would get one.

As to whether you'd get a cover save from a Deffrolla, it has to be a categorical NO.

There are no range/AP values for the attack, thus it is not a shooting attack. Cover saves ONLY cover shooting attacks, as you cannot use them in close combat or for other things (such as perils of the warp etc). Remember an invulverable save is vastly different to a cover save. No way does a Deffrolla come into this category.

Also remember as well that you're entitled to your armour saves vs a Deffrolla - if anything, it's more akin to close combat attacks than shooting attacks.

Note as well that a vehicle that had popped smoke would also NOT get a cover save vs a Deffrolla's ram attack.

#2, as a general rule, I blieve they did, altho I also seem to remember the defender did indeed have a "steal the initiative" type option is some of those scenarios. I'd have to dig through the old books to confirm.

#1, personally, I wouldn't claim one

liam0404 wrote:As to whether you'd get a cover save from a Deffrolla, it has to be a categorical NO.

There are no range/AP values for the attack, thus it is not a shooting attack. Cover saves ONLY cover shooting attacks, as you cannot use them in close combat or for other things (such as perils of the warp etc). Remember an invulverable save is vastly different to a cover save. No way does a Deffrolla come into this category.

Also remember as well that you're entitled to your armour saves vs a Deffrolla - if anything, it's more akin to close combat attacks than shooting attacks.

Note as well that a vehicle that had popped smoke would also NOT get a cover save vs a Deffrolla's ram attack.

Could you show were it says you only get cover saves on shooting attacks. The section on taking saves is in the shooting section but it describes the process for taking saves. There is nothing in that section that says you only take cover on shooting attack or from weapons with a ranged profile. The close combat section specifically forbids cover saves. So unless an attack says you cannot take a cover save then you may take a cover save.

think about it this way. you have a giant steam roller flattening everything in its path. would you get a cover save from a wall or a forest if the wall/trees get crushed in the process?

1)Is it a CC attack? Does it specify no cover saves allowed?

If no to both, then cover saves should be allowed.

2) iirc don_mondo is correct on that, but I need to go find them too.

/shrug

(Note: Opinion varied from previous threads based on FAQs)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emporer Penguin wrote:think about it this way. you have a giant steam roller flattening everything in its path. would you get a cover save from a wall or a forest if the wall/trees get crushed in the process?

Does the deffrolla romove terrain? No, so regardless the wall/tree isn't crushed, which makes it easier to assume yes to cover if you follow that idea.

Emporer Penguin wrote:think about it this way. you have a giant steam roller flattening everything in its path. would you get a cover save from a wall or a forest if the wall/trees get crushed in the process?

Running over trees would knock them down but a giant roller doesn't actually turn them to paste. There would be plenty of room to hide in cover. And if your cover was caused by a force field because you happen to have a generator on your back then why wouldn't it protect you. There are plenty of fluff reasons to allow cover.

RAW there is nothing preventing you from taking a cover save. It does seem weird but that is how it works. You get armour, invul, or a cover save when you take a wound. Unless there is a rule stopping you from taking one of those saves you would get that save.

BrockRitcey wrote:Could you show were it says you only get cover saves on shooting attacks. The section on taking saves is in the shooting section but it describes the process for taking saves.

It actually describes the process for taking saves against shooting attacks. The whole save section refers to damage from incoming 'shots' or refers to the 'firer' ... It's intrinsically a part of the shooting process, not just a blanket 'saves are something that is available against any damage'.

You are later given permission to also take armour and invulnerable saves against close combat attacks.

So to take a save against anything that isn't defined as either a shooting attack or a close combat attack, you would therefore technically need a rule that actually says that you can take a save against it.


Of course, that leaves us not actually able to take saves against the Deffrolla at all, since it's not defined as any specific type of attack. So you're going to have to make it up for yourself.

Personally, it seems obvious that cover saves are only supposed to be effective against ranged attacks, so that's the way I would continue to play it. YMMV.

insaniak wrote:

It actually describes the process for taking saves against shooting attacks. The whole save section refers to damage from incoming 'shots' or refers to the 'firer' ... It's intrinsically a part of the shooting process, not just a blanket 'saves are something that is available against any damage'.

This is the original stance I had.

However, as Yakface has explained well in a few threads--and GW has backed in FAQs as RAI, ALL the rules for stopping damage are in the shooting rules, but they are utilized every time wounds are dealt.

1. Insaniak is usually right....
2. No idea...

kirsanth wrote:However, as Yakface has explained well in a few threads--and GW has backed in FAQs as RAI, ALL the rules for stopping damage are in the shooting rules, but they are utilized every time wounds are dealt.

Indeed they are... because they are generally referenced as such. So you can take Armour Saves in the close combat phase, for example, because the close combat rules say that you can do so.

Where the rules neglect to tell us to apply the rules as we would for shooting, we fall into a RAW hole, and are left with figuring it out for ourselves. In most cases, that's not difficult. Cover saves are really the only place where it gets problematic...

But to my mind, the explanation as to how cover saves work limits them exclusively to shooting. Not RAW, just what works for me. If you prefer to apply cover saves to everything not explicitly defined as a close combat attack, that's up to you.

The close combat rules tell you to follow the rules in the shooting section. The cover rules are only defined in the shooting section. Yes, when a non-shooting non-closecombat attack doesn't tell you to reference the shooting section there aren't actual rules to follow but since things are only explained once in the shooting section then that would be the section you would reference.

Technically you wouldn't get saves but you wouldn't be able to apply the hits into wounds either since that is only explained in the shooting or close combat section and the rolla is neither.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

It actually describes the process for taking saves against shooting attacks. The whole save section refers to damage from incoming 'shots' or refers to the 'firer' ... It's intrinsically a part of the shooting process, not just a blanket 'saves are something that is available against any damage'.

The only place where invul saves are defined is against shooting attacks. The invul save section describes taking them because a shot has a high ap then your armour. We can still take them in close combat even though the cc section doesn't mention them and just says to reference the shooting section even though they are only describe as saving against incoming shots.

BrockRitcey wrote:We can still take them in close combat even though the cc section doesn't mention them and just says to reference the shooting section even though they are only describe as saving against incoming shots.

The close combat section does mention them.

The section of the CC rules dealing with saving throws starts off by saying that we can take saving throws exactly as for shooting, goes on to mention that cover saves can't be taken, and then points out that invulnerable saves can be taken.

Opps. Missed that last line.

Edit:
Never mind the invul says you can always take them no matter what.

Edit:

Although the armour description only talks about saving from incoming fire. Same as the cover saves. So using just the description of armour and cover then you would assume that only shooting or wounds that specify you can take armour saves would allow armour saves?

Raw we agree that there is a hole in the rules so any ruling would come down to you and your opponent.

Armour Saves and Invulnerable saves are intrinsic to the model. So I would allow them against the Deffrolla.

Cover Saves represent the target being obscured, making shooting at them harder. So I would not allow them against the Deffrolla.


Again, not strict RAW, because the RAW for saves doesn't cover damage inflicted by anything that is not a shooting or close combat attack. Just what makes sense to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrockRitcey wrote:Never mind the invul says you can always take them no matter what.

Yeah, That too

insaniak wrote:Cover Saves represent the target being obscured, making shooting at them harder. So I would not allow them against the Deffrolla.

Sort of. Cover saves CAN represent obscured targets (see Vehicles). It can also represent "hard cover", which is specifically denied by close combat.

I want to reiterate though, that I do understand your take insaniak--I have argued the same line of logic.

I do not find it to be sound, however.
Yes, all cover save rules reference shooting.
So do all the rest.
Yes, the CC rules say to use the rules in the shooting section. However, the rules in the shooting section state that they work against shooting.

Ignore that only for which parts?
The rules do not say.

They DO however, point out with amazing regularity attacks and types of attacks that ignore cover.
In fact, I am having a hard time now finding other attacks that deny cover without stating such--care to list some for me?

kirsanth wrote:

insaniak wrote:Cover Saves represent the target being obscured, making shooting at them harder. So I would not allow them against the Deffrolla.

Sort of. Cover saves CAN represent obscured targets (see Vehicles).

Cover almost always represents the target being obscured, whether by being physically obscured by terrain or counting as obscured by special rule. The term 'obscured' doesn't apply specifically to vehicles. All models gain a cover save by being obscured from the point of view of the firer.

Yes, the CC rules say to use the rules in the shooting section. However, the rules in the shooting section state that they work against shooting.

It doesn't say to use the rules in the shooting section. It says to use the same procedure as for shooting.

So you use the shooting rules, but wherever it refers to shooting attacks, you substitute close combat attacks.

So are you saying that the Deffrolla ignores cover saves but everything else actually needs to to state that cover saves are ignored?

editing to add why I ask:

Deffrollas are now one of the few things that cause wounds, do not specify no cover saves, and yet people think they do not apply.
I write "few" there, as I assume I am missing something--it is actually the ONLY thing I can find now, which is why I asked for examples.

kirsanth wrote:So are you saying that the Deffrolla ignores cover saves but everything else actually needs to to state that cover saves are ignored?

No.

insaniak wrote:So to take a save against anything that isn't defined as either a shooting attack or a close combat attack, you would therefore technically need a rule that actually says that you can take a save against it.

By RAW as I read it, the Deffrolla technically doesn't allow saves at all. I would play it as allowing Armour and Invulnerable, but not Cover.
Anything else, if there even is anything, that confers damage without being defined as a shooting or close combat attack and without specifying anything about saves would technically not allow a save... but I would take that on a case by case basis as to how to play it.

insaniak wrote:Anything else, if there even is anything, that confers damage without being defined as a shooting or close combat attack and without specifying anything about saves would technically not allow a save.

This is where I started.

insaniak wrote:but I would take that on a case by case basis as to how to play it.

This is the problem.

Can you find a few (I cannot find one, but it has only been 15min) where the rules actually vary?

As of now, all rules I can find that are neither CC nor shooting allow cover saves--for the exact reasons listed.

The one thing I can think of is when a vehicle explodes. It states the guy's in a vehicle take a str 4 hit as if from a shooting attack, which would let you take a cover save. Now the guys outside a vehicle it says they take a str4 ap- hit. That is a ranged weapon profile but it doesn't spell out it is a ranged attack. It's just an area effect. Since the guys in a vehicle are hit as if from shooting I would play the guys outside are hit as if from shooting and would let them have the cover save also but it would be another hole in the rules.

Don't the DE have some things that cause wounds from flying over a unit?

The point is though it is a hole in the rules and not allowing cover because it seems right to him is just as good as allowing any save or no save or any combination. Invul saves would always be allowed though since they specify that they can always be used when the model takes a wound. He likes not giving cover and I figure that they should get cover so if we ever happened to meet in person and it came up we could always 4+ it or in a tourney got to the TO for a call.

Wait, why is an attack that is specified as a shooting attack denied cover saves again?

In that example (explodes) these is no terrain to sit in prior to the wounds.

Some arguments in favour of cover saves have been so far beyond the intention of the rule, its baffling.

Simply put - a cover save is a save granted to a model when the attacking model does not have full line of sight to the target, and where the weapon in question ignores the targets armour because of its AP value. Deffrollas operate neither on visibilty, or through ignoring armour saves - claiming cover saves for it is a ridiculous twist on a very clear rule.

kirsanth wrote:Wait, why is an attack that is specified as a shooting attack denied cover saves again?

In that example (explodes) these is no terrain to sit in prior to the wounds.

The blast for guys in a vehicle is a shooting attack. If the models had some rule that always gave them a cover save then they would be able to take it.

The blast for guys outside a vehicle isn't described as a shooting attack. It's a S3 ap- hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liam0404 wrote:Some arguments in favour of cover saves have been so far beyond the intention of the rule, its baffling.

Simply put - a cover save is a save granted to a model when the attacking model does not have full line of sight to the target, and where the weapon in question ignores the targets armour because of its AP value. Deffrollas operate neither on visibilty, or through ignoring armour saves - claiming cover saves for it is a ridiculous twist on a very clear rule.

Cover saves don't always work on LOS. KFF or smoke grant cover and it doesn't matter if you have clear LOS. A cover save can also be take when it is better than your armour save even if the attack wouldn't beat armour. There are also plenty of attacks that don't rely on visibility that allow cover saves.


There isn't a rule that says don't take cover and the section of the book that describes saves includes cover. There is a hole in the rule in that a rolla isn't a shooting attack or a close combat attack so there isn't rules for allocating wounds or saves from it but if you goto the section that deals with saves cover is a valid save.

liam0404 wrote:Some arguments in favour of cover saves have been so far beyond the intention of the rule, its baffling.

Simply put - a cover save is a save granted to a model when the attacking model does not have full line of sight to the target, and where the weapon in question ignores the targets armour because of its AP value. Deffrollas operate neither on visibilty, or through ignoring armour saves - claiming cover saves for it is a ridiculous twist on a very clear rule.

Wrong. Cover saves are NOT in relation to the shooter if the target is in area terrain.

BrockRitcey wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Wait, why is an attack that is specified as a shooting attack denied cover saves again?

In that example (explodes) these is no terrain to sit in prior to the wounds.

The blast for guys in a vehicle is a shooting attack. If the models had some rule that always gave them a cover save then they would be able to take it.

The blast for guys outside a vehicle isn't described as a shooting attack. It's a S3 ap- hit.

Blast rules specify that the cover saves are based upon where the unit is in relation to the center of the blast marker. Irreleveant.

Deffrollas do not specify they are CC attacks (they are during Movement so not even implied)
Deffrollas do not specify they ignore cover saves, the text is simply not there.

Deffrollas deal wounds outside of shooting or close combat.

If no cover saves are allowed, RAW allows nothing to stop or allow the wounds for the same reason.