I don't see anywhere in the Mawloc deep strike description that it is "shooting", and it does not happen during the shooting phase. That makes his "shot" interesting in that it has all of the characteristics of a regular blast, but isn't one.

So given that it shares characteristics, including large blast w/ scatter, would that mean that you would receive a cover save if you were in area terrain just like you do against other large blast markers? What about KFF? Would it convey a 5+ to units or 4+ obscured to vehicles if he is blasting models within 6" of a mek or a mek's vehicle?

Please, don't carry over the debate about whether or not the Mawloc can CHOOSE to land on a model to this thread, as I want an answer, not a locked thread. There are so many holes in the swiss cheese Mawloc, that I honestly can't figure out whether I even care when my opponent fields one.

No scatter, and no cover.

Cover works vs shooting.

It is not a ranged attack.

As Kirsanth said: it is NOT a shooting attack of any kind, therefore no cover saves and no scatter.

Now this is very interesting, and actually makes the Mawloc quite a bit better.

The ability to remove an enemy model with absolutely no defense possible wasn't good enough?

Jack

I would venture to disagree with the "it doesn't get cover" position. It has shooting characteristics, including an AP value, and large blast, which are both clearly covered in the shooting section, and nowhere else. Selectively stating "only cover rules don't apply, but you know what a large blast and AP value are. They can be done outside of shooting now". It uses similar targeting characteristics (i.e. scatter dice).

I would also add that cover can apply to a number of things, including "shots and debris". In the assault phase, if a vehicle explodes with a guy with a KFF inside, the boyz get a KFF save. It wasn't shooting, but the explosion has the characteristics of shooting, and therefore cover saves apply. Moreover, even the crater that you are now standing in due to the explosion can be counted as cover. If boyz were lined up in the trees next to a vehicle that explodes, they receive cover. If your vehicle explodes during the movement phase due to a successful D&G roll, the same applies. Those are clear examples of non-shooting being defended by cover.

Nowhere in the MODELS WITH MORE THAN ONE SAVE section does it say anything to the effect of cover only applying to shooting. In fact, it is only in the assault section of the book under TAKING SAVES is it stated that cover saves don't apply to close combat results.

I would turn the table on this and state that a deepstrike "attack", particularly one that has statistics of a shooting attack, does not constitute a close combat attack, and therefore couldn't really be argued that cover doesn't apply.

Carnuss wrote:I would venture to disagree with the "it doesn't get cover" position. It has shooting characteristics, including an AP value, and large blast, which are both clearly covered in the shooting section, and nowhere else. Selectively stating "only cover rules don't apply, but you know what a large blast and AP value are. They can be done outside of shooting now". It uses similar targeting characteristics (i.e. scatter dice).

I would also add that cover can apply to a number of things, including "shots and debris". In the assault phase, if a vehicle explodes with a guy with a KFF inside, the boyz get a KFF save. It wasn't shooting, but the explosion has the characteristics of shooting, and therefore cover saves apply. Moreover, even the crater that you are now standing in due to the explosion can be counted as cover. If boyz were lined up in the trees next to a vehicle that explodes, they receive cover. If your vehicle explodes during the movement phase due to a successful D&G roll, the same applies. Those are clear examples of non-shooting being defended by cover.

Nowhere in the MODELS WITH MORE THAN ONE SAVE section does it say anything to the effect of cover only applying to shooting. In fact, it is only in the assault section of the book under TAKING SAVES is it stated that cover saves don't apply to close combat results.

I would turn the table on this and state that a deepstrike "attack", particularly one that has statistics of a shooting attack, does not constitute a close combat attack, and therefore couldn't really be argued that cover doesn't apply.

Find where it is a ranged weapon or a damage effect at range (e.g. exploding vehicle) and you would have a point.

It has no range and has nothing defining it as a shooting or other attack at range. Cover saves are also under the "shooting" section...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Cover saves are also under the "shooting" section...

They are under the shooting section because the shooting section is the first place where they describe units taking damage in the rulebook. The cover saves make no explicit statement providing that they apply to shooting only. The only reason you associate it with shooting is because 99% of damage taken is during the shooting and assault phase, and assault explicitly prohibits cover saves. In the assault phase, it is actually assumed that cover follows the "MODELS WITH MORE THAN ONE SAVE", which is why they interject with the explicit rule prohibiting cover saves.

Page 21.

"against flying debris and enemy shots"

"not affected by the Armor Piercing"

"protecting it from enemy shots"

"obscured from the point of view of the firer"

"may shoot over"

"check the firers' line of sight"

"from the firer's view"

There is more, and other pages.

kirsanth wrote:Page 21.

"against flying debris and enemy shots"

"not affected by the Armor Piercing"

"protecting it from enemy shots"

"obscured from the point of view of the firer"

"may shoot over"

"check the firers' line of sight"

"from the firer's view"

There is more, and other pages.

OK. Do you take cover saves from exploding vehicles? I'd venture to guess you've rolled a cover save in a game or two. Vehicles aren't shooting at you when they are exploding. What phases can a vehicle explode in?

- Movement
- Shooting
- Assault

There is nowhere that it is inappropriate, as any of the phases can include explosions, and in none of those instances is it appropriate to forsake the cover save. How is this any different?

As for the "it isn't shooting", if this were an armor-ignoring melee strike, it would be labeled as a power weapon. In this case, it is labeled with an AP value and blast template which only exist within the shooting rules and are shooting conventions. It therefore has no rules to explain it outside of the shooting context.

Carnuss wrote:OK. Do you take cover saves from exploding vehicles? I'd venture to guess you've rolled a cover save in a game or two.

Never have.

my head hurts.

Nothing in the rules strictly states that cover saves can only be taken against 'shooting' attacks, or that they do not work similarly to other saves once gained... if you have one to take, you can take it as long as the situation doesn't prohibit it (as CC specifically does, for example).

A few fluffy lines about how cover 'protects you from enemy shots' (especially as far out of context as the quotes above are... most of them have nothing to do with taking cover saves and are to do with gaining a cover save) is not a solid foundation for ruling otherwise.

Gaining a cover save is another beast entirely, but taking one you have against an attack that doesn't prohibit them is perfectly allowable.

Carnuss - what was that bit about "flying debris" again? The explosion from a vehicle would certainly be considered to be "flying debris"....

Does the Mawloc shoot anyone? No. the attack is, by definition, not a ranged attack *as it has no range* and there is noabiltiy for you to determine where the shot has come from. No way to determine cover in other words...

So if a giant monster bursts from the ground beneath me the fact that I'm lying in a ditch is protection?...

C'mon you just don't want it to be so powerful, but it is!

@ the naysayers

Nonsense. Fluff-wise, if every one of my boyz has a force field wrapped around his adorable little green head, there is nothing that would indicate that the force field doesn't have an effect. There is no reason that an ork in a forest would be unable to jump behind a tree to avoid whirling talons of death as they came out of the ground.

If I adopt your narrow description of cover and shooting, then I can find no place in the entire rulebook other than the shooting section on page 20 that explains an armor piercing value. Given that, there is no reason that it would negate cover saves, as any claim that it "isn't a gun because it isn't in the shooting phase" or that "cover isn't possible outside of shooting because it is covered in the shooting phase" has circular logic that comes back on itself, meaning that the "AP value has no effect since that only applies to the shooting phase", which is clearly not the intention of the rule.

Add to that that RAW does not exclude cover saves from anything other than close combat and other unique attacks that specifically disallow cover saves per the individual codex. Since this doesn't fall into either of those buckets, there is no apparent reason that cover saves would not apply.

@Carnuss , does this unit get cover save?

Shooter --------------- Target-- XXcoverXX

I'm not familiar with the Maw-thing but...
Does this thing being discussed allows saves at all? I'm assuming yes since it has an AP value.
If it does allow saves, then it allows ALL saves unless specified otherwise (example: flamers don't allow cover saves).

The whole "no range" argument is moot, imho. Having no Range Value doesn't mean it's not ranged (example: flamers don't have a range value).

P.S. Don't use my flamer example as an argument in favor of it allowing no cover save since the reason it doesn't is because the rules specifically say so.

Does Yriel's eye beam blast allow cover saves? It's a large blast with an AP value that he fires off in place of his CC attacks...is there any ruling or precedence one way or another that's ever said his blast allows or doesn't allow cover saves? I'd think it's a similar idea...an attack that borrows concepts from shooting but isn't itself a shooting attack.

There is no way for you to determine if the person counts as being in cover, as there is no range and no "weapon" to determing point of origin.

sirisaacnuton wrote:Does Yriel's eye beam blast allow cover saves? It's a large blast with an AP value that he fires off in place of his CC attacks...is there any ruling or precedence one way or another that's ever said his blast allows or doesn't allow cover saves? I'd think it's a similar idea...an attack that borrows concepts from shooting but isn't itself a shooting attack.

Him firing it off in place of CC attacks is the key here.
Since it's in place of CC attacks, it's in the assault phase and cover saves aren't allowed in assault. Again a specific rule.

Mind you, maybe it really shouldn't allow cover saves, but unless the rules say it doesn't allow them, then they're allowed.

Same goes for my WH Digital Weapons really.

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is no way for you to determine if the person counts as being in cover, as there is no range and no "weapon" to determing point of origin.

That depends entirely on what kind of cover you are talking about. The rulebook is very clear that models that are "in" the terrain take the cover save, even if their bases are only partially on the base. It isn't about line of sight in that case. In the case of the KFF that I kicked off the discussion with, a KFF is not about line of sight. The rule is very simply that if any model from your unit is within 6" of the KFF, you are in cover. These aren't ambiguous at all, regardless of where the attack originates.

LunaHound wrote:Shooter --------------- Target-- XXcoverXX

Is it a trick question? Do I need to prove that the shooter is in range and that the hyphens aren't area terrain, or qualify what kind of weapon he is shooting? Should I verify that the target isn't a Big Mek with KFF before answering? Or just go with the simple answer and say he's not in cover since that what you are prompting me to say?

Actually it states you recieve a 5+ cover save. You now need to prove that this is a weapon you can take cover saves against, when it doesnt have a range...

Why do I need to prove that when there is nowhere stating that a cover save doesn't apply to attacks outside of the shooting phase? Where is range a specific requirement for a cover save? I haven't read in the cover section where it states that the rule doesn't come into play when the weapon used has no range, and haven't read in the deep strike rules where it states that no cover saves are allowed for attacks initiated at the beginning of the turn. Can you site the page that's on?

Here I thought you were asking something. I did not realize you have proven that cover saves work on damage done from non-shooting attacks.

Apologies for cluttering your thread with quotes from the rule book.

Didn't Gorkamorka already raise a valid point?

Nowhere in the codex does it say you can only take cover saves against shooting attacks only. It does say specifically that CC do not grant cover saves, but nothing else is listed under specifics that do NOT grant cover saves.

Is the Mawlocks attack a close combat attack? If that is so, it should not grant cover saves, but if it is just a blast, it should grant cover saves, provided of course the unit is in a suitable area terrain, like a ruin or crater.

Carnuss wrote:Why do I need to prove that when there is nowhere stating that a cover save doesn't apply to attacks outside of the shooting phase? Where is range a specific requirement for a cover save? I haven't read in the cover section where it states that the rule doesn't come into play when the weapon used has no range, and haven't read in the deep strike rules where it states that no cover saves are allowed for attacks initiated at the beginning of the turn. Can you site the page that's on?

So I suppose you give cover saves vs weapons used in cc? No. I believe there is specific mention of this in the brb.

I believe the cover save rules are in the shooting phase.

Just remember that 40k is a permissive rules set. If you can't find a rule that allows you to take a cover save besides shooting, you probably can't do it.

I don't have the rule book in front of me, so I am not sure that cover saves can be used even for shooting.

I want cover saves from Dangerous terrain as well, as the model is obviously in cover.

I will not, however, claim one, any more than vs Gets Hot, Perils of the Warp, or the already mentioned Vehicle explosions.

I might be mistaken, but isn't the Mawloc attack just representing the fact that it's burrowing out of the ground to rain death from below? So considering that, what cover, short of standing on a building or impassable terrain, would grant a save against that? Also with the KFF, does the KFF provide spherical cover (ie. all around the unit both above and below ground) or just the upper hemisphere?

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS OF OUR TIMES.

kirsanth wrote:I want cover saves from Dangerous terrain as well, as the model is obviously in cover.

I will not, however, claim one, any more than vs Gets Hot, Perils of the Warp, or the already mentioned Vehicle explosions.

You are in full rights to claim a cover save from dangerous terrain, provided something is actually obscuring line of fire. So if half your model IS being devoured by ravenous tentacles, and that does cover 50% or more of him, you are entitled to a cover save.

Is there a reason we're being intentionally obtuse, ignoring RAW, using fluff as proof, and listing things that clearly and specifically deny cover saves along with things that don't as an argument for something that does not deny cover saves somehow denying cover saves?

If you have a cover saving throw to take, you can take it unless it is denied specifically.

Yes.
There is nothing in the rules for allowing cover saves to be taken from non-shooting attacks.

kirsanth wrote:Yes.
There is nothing in the rules for allowing cover saves to be taken from non-shooting attacks.

Other than the saving throw and cover save rules... but feel free to break RAW to satisfy fluffy RAI ideals.
Have fun with that.

dimmy52 wrote:I might be mistaken, but isn't the Mawloc attack just representing the fact that it's burrowing out of the ground to rain death from below? So considering that, what cover, short of standing on a building or impassable terrain, would grant a save against that?

Imagination cover. The cover of your imagination... .

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS OF OUR TIMES.

They are indeed.

'...regardless of what's firing at them...'

Nothing is firing at them, and taking cover saves against vehicle explosions is just silly.

'... is obscured from the point of view of the firer...'

You COULD argue that since the Mawloc is coming out of the ground, he cant see them... but... he is coming up through whatever cover they had.

I think this 'debate' is a bit strange TBH.

kirsanth wrote:Yes.
There is nothing in the rules for allowing cover saves to be taken from non-shooting attacks.

Nor would anyone expect something like that, since it is so clear that it is the case. Cover saves, are against shooting, this is not complicated.

BTW, Hi Kirsanth .

kirsanth is correct.

kirsanth wrote:I want cover saves from Dangerous terrain as well, as the model is obviously in cover.

I will not, however, claim one, any more than vs Gets Hot, Perils of the Warp, or the already mentioned Vehicle explosions.

dangerous terrain and perils each say what types of saves are allowed ie invul only gets hot you get a normal save against ok now for the cover saves pg 21 what counts as cover "cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots " as for the mawlocks attack i need to see the actual rule before i can make an atempt at replying to it but it sounds an awful lot like a shooting attack

Can someone direct me to the rules telling us how you can wound anything with an attack that is not shooting or close combat?

At first glance I can't find anything that allows a non shooting, non CC S6 attack to actually damage anything.

Webbe wrote:At first glance I can't find anything that allows a non shooting, non CC S6 attack to actually damage anything.

Indeed. And that is the bottom of the slippery slope that one ends at when stating "cover is for shooting phase because that's where it is explained". If you make no attempt at inference, you end with an ability that can't be used due to no supporting rule explaining how to use it. I would not use fluff to build inference, but the models in terrain, turbo boost, smoke launcher, and KFF rules are explicit enough to make it clear that it doesn't matter what the line of sight from the initiating model is.

The Mawloc rule doesn't explicitly disallow any saves mentioned in the multiple saves rules, unlike close combat. Albeit kicking armor saves to the side with its AP 2, that still leaves invulnerable saves and cover saves where applicable.

Lets see if I can wrap my head around this...

Shooting - models may take cover saves, because its defined in depth how to get cover saves from shooting (pg 21 BRB)

Assault - models may not take cover saves, because it specifically excludes such saves (pg 39 BRB)

Vehicle Exploding - Suffer wounds and treated just like hits from shooting (pg 67 BRB)

Psychic Damage - I cannot think of anything that creates a wound that doesn't define how the save is taken, if there is a non-shooting psychic attack that doesn't define if you get a cover save or not, but GW/general consensus is you get a cover save, then the argument could be made that the Malwoc blast would.

Malwoc Blast - Since it is not shooting, and is not an assault, and does not say it is treated as shooting or an assault (I should say appears not to say, since I do not have the codex in front of me) models do not get a cover save, because it does not say that a cover save is allowed in its rules.

therefore you do not get a cover save from a Malwoc Blast


edited: apparently i like clicking buttons too much

kirsanth wrote:

Carnuss wrote:OK. Do you take cover saves from exploding vehicles? I'd venture to guess you've rolled a cover save in a game or two.

Never have.

I have to state that I have never taken a cover save from an exploding vehicle, either. I've always only taken armor/invulnerable saves.

I think I agree a bit with Maxus, though it might be an issue that needs better clarification. Vehicle explosion wounds are handled just like shooting, as per the rules, so I guess cover saves would be applicable.

The Mawloc's tunnel bomb doesn't state exactly how to handle the wounds.

Personally, it makes the most sense to me for the attack to not allow cover saves, but that woud be a RaP interpretation.

Maxus wrote:
Malwoc Blast - Since it is not shooting, and is not an assault, and does not say it is treated as shooting or an assault (I should say appears not to say, since I do not have the codex in front of me) models do not get a cover save, because it does not say that a cover save is allowed in its rules.

therefore you do not get a cover save from a Malwoc Blast


edited: apparently i like clicking buttons too much

A cover saving throw is a saving throw. You can take it, as you can take other saving throws, against anything that doesn't deny it if you can get it.
Whether you can gain the save here is indeed quite iffy. Whether you can take a cover saving throw you have been granted, as by a kff, against wounds from an attack that does not deny them is clear.

"Take saving throws: Each wound suffered
may be cancelled by making a saving throw.
Saving throws usually derive from the armour
worn by each model, from being in cover, or
some other piece of wargear or ability."

"Take Saving Throws: Before he removes any models as casualties, the
owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid
the damage by making a saving throw. This could be
because of the target’s armour, some other protective
device or ability, or intervening models or terrain."

"Cover Saves:
A position in cover shields troops against flying debris
and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads
down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid
harm. Because of this, units in or behind cover receive
a cover saving throw. The great thing about cover
saving throws is that they are not affected by the
Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon, so
units in cover will normally get a saving throw
regardless of what’s firing at them."

At no point are cover saving throws described as only working against specifically typed 'shooting' attacks in the shooting phase, or otherwise somehow limited beyond other saving throws outside the rules for determining eligibility or specific provisions as in the CC rule.

Gorkamorka wrote:
"Cover Saves:
A position in cover shields troops against flying debris
and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads
down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid
harm. Because of this, units in or behind cover receive
a cover saving throw. The great thing about cover
saving throws is that they are not affected by the
Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon, so
units in cover will normally get a saving throw
regardless of what’s firing at them."

At no point are cover saving throws described as only working against specifically typed 'shooting' attacks, or otherwise somehow limited beyond other saving throws outside the rules for determining eligibility or specific provisions as in the CC rule.

While it is not specifically stated, it is strongly implied.

Saldiven wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
"Cover Saves:
A position in cover shields troops against flying debris
and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads
down or crawl amongst the rocks and (hopefully) avoid
harm. Because of this, units in or behind cover receive
a cover saving throw. The great thing about cover
saving throws is that they are not affected by the
Armour Piercing value of the attacking weapon, so
units in cover will normally get a saving throw
regardless of what’s firing at them."

At no point are cover saving throws described as only working against specifically typed 'shooting' attacks, or otherwise somehow limited beyond other saving throws outside the rules for determining eligibility or specific provisions as in the CC rule.

While it is not specifically stated, it is strongly implied.

That's just fluff. All of the examples for armor piercing are presented as guns as well, though that rule can clearly move between phases as the Maw-loc is evidence of. If you are reaching into fluff for implication, then wouldn't a creature bursting from the ground, in fact, amount to flying debris? As it is the ground bursting that in effect scatters your troops, the creature appearing from the hole it creates is a secondary effect. Fluff arguments always end in sadness, as they can only lead to hypothetical scenarios.

RAI vs RAW - everyone realizes these simply become circular arguments right? Depending on interpretation of either how the rule book reads or what isn't written in the codex, both sides could be right, both could be wrong, etc. etc. THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER!

Sorry for the capitalization, but Dakka is just getting crazy with these debates. Next thing you know its 20 pages long and folks are still arguing the same thing.

Since folks like quoting the rule book - look in the beginning section about resolving questions or debates. If you can't decide something (as in in-house rules or whatever), simply dice off for it. 4+ equals no cover save. Then you have an answer until the FAQ comes out.

Saldiven wrote:
While it is not specifically stated, it is strongly implied.

Hardly. The second provision makes perfect sense, as the only weapons with armor piercing values are ranged. The first provision is vague at best, ignorable fluff at worst, could easily refer to nearly any non-cc attack (including the 'flying debris' of exploding vehicles you claim don't allow cover), and also states that cover helps troops unspecifically 'avoid harm'. It's hardly clear or strong evidence for either side, and guessing through implication and intention isn't what we're doing here.

The rules state that cover is a saving throw, with no caveats preventing you from taking it against anything that doesn't say otherwise if you have it.

Gorkamorka wrote:The rules state that cover is a saving throw, with no caveats preventing you from taking it against anything that doesn't say otherwise if you have it.

So. . . it does not say you can't?

Not quite.
Nothing allows it.

To continue, since the rules on the page defining cover do not . . . cover it, let's move on. I am still leaving out most of the sentence, or I would need to post multiple pages of rules. People should be able to read them well enough in any case.

Page 22:

"models can always shoot, and be shot at . . . without receiving a cover save"

"are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from"

"Firing through units or area terrain"

"If a model fires through"

"Firing out of area terrain"

"Therefor they may fire through"

"in order to be able to shoot at all"

"If only one model is shooting, it will be easy to tell how many models in the target unit are in cover"

And again from page 21, since it really sums the issue up since it is describing "Cover Saves":
"so units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them"

The point is, nothing says you CAN take a cover save from anything other than shooting attacks -- even if one is entitled a cover save.

Saying "it does not say I cannot" only works when something else says you can.

Using fluff for an argument is lose-lose. Nowhere in the Mawloc's rules does it state it ignores cover saves unlike other attacks that mention it if they do.

Player 1: You don't get cover saves from this special ability.
Player 2: Show me the rule that says I can't.

Since you can't provide anything that discounts cover saves, they get to take them.

Let's take this another step, this time using fluff; the mawloc's template represents the fury of a big bug coming up from the ground. I don't know about what you think but something that large would shake the ground coming up and give the targets plenty of notice that the ground is not safe. Now, if you're standing on a patch of ground that's shaking and your buddy 10 feet away is standing nice and calm and not noticing anything, what would you do? I'd jump over next to him thus the whole "move any surviving models at least 1" away".

Also note the section entitled "When are models in Cover" The first sentence lets you know when cover saves apply. "When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer" Emphasis mine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:Using fluff for an argument is lose-lose. Nowhere in the Mawloc's rules does it state it ignores cover saves unlike other attacks that mention it if they do.

You mean the shooting attacks which normally allow cover saves to be taken? You wonder why those shooting attacks mention when cover saves cannot be taken against them?

Because cover saves are allowed against shooting attacks. So shooting attacks that deny them need to specify such.

Meh. Circular logic. There is no rule that specifically states cover saves can only be taken during shooting. There is no rule that specifically states the mawloc ability ignores cover.

I just won't play anyone that wants to field one of these because there'd be no point in fielding the tau agains something so cheap and ridiculous; 170 pts for something that has a reasonable chance to destroy any unit it comes under. I play for fun not to just take my models off the table when someone wants to abuse the rules (or lack thereof).

Mattbranb wrote:
Sorry for the capitalization, but Dakka is just getting crazy with these debates. Next thing you know its 20 pages long and folks are still arguing the same thing.

But...but....

If we stop now, that would just be un-Dakka-like.

agnosto wrote:Meh. Circular logic.

No, it is not. It is based upon rules. Circular logic would be something like assuming that it works, and using that assumption to prove that it works. I am basing my logic on the text. Cover saves are allowed when the model is in cover from the point of view of the firing unit.

kirsanth wrote: note the section entitled "When are models in Cover" The first sentence lets you know when cover saves apply. "When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer" Emphasis mine.

agnosto wrote:Meh. Circular logic. There is no rule that specifically states cover saves can only be taken during shooting. There is no rule that specifically states the mawloc ability ignores cover.

I just won't play anyone that wants to field one of these because there'd be no point in fielding the tau agains something so cheap and ridiculous; 170 pts for something that has a reasonable chance to destroy any unit it comes under. I play for fun not to just take my models off the table when someone wants to abuse the rules (or lack thereof).

There is also no rule that states that cover saves can be taken against anything that isn't a shooting attack.

Leaves aren't going to protect you from gettin' ate.

Leaves get ate.

kirsanth wrote: note the section entitled "When are models in Cover" The first sentence lets you know when cover saves apply. "When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer" Emphasis mine.

The KFF . . . covers that part for you.

kirsanth wrote:The KFF . . . covers that part for you.

So I can take a kff granted cover saving throw against non-'shooting' wounds, because the only rules you are quoting are specifically for gaining the save against shooting and not for taking it, which is covered in the saving throw rules? That's my entire point.

I'm confused at how getting ate is a shooting attack..

No cover saves.

I'd say a KFF could be used a unit inside a transport suffering an explosion, as explosions are treated as shooting hits as per page 67.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:I'd say a KFF could be used a unit inside a transport suffering an explosion, as explosions are treated as shooting hits as per page 67.

GAK!

Thank you for that.

I will ammend that part where I said no cover versus vehicle explosions.

Karon wrote:I'm confused at how getting ate is a shooting attack..

No cover saves.

If there were any restrictsions on the saves applied to the attack, it would be stated, and there is no indication that the Mawloc is eating you. It only puts one wound on the target, right? Does that mean that he didn't like what he ate with multi-wound targets and spits them out?

Where are the eating rules, anyway? Are they located in close combat where cover is prohibited? If so, why is there an AP rating on the attack?

When a Swooping Hawk drops its Swooping Hawk Grenades, it happens in the movement phase, not the shooting phase and there is no range on the weapon. Therefore, it is not a shooting attack. Therefore, no cover can be taken from Swooping Hawk Grenade Packs either. Sweet!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, I haven't read the exact Mawloc rules yet (only internet reports of what it does), but what I'm gathering from context is that it emerges in the movement phase, and everything under the large blast where it emerges takes a Str x AP x hit. Also, I have read that where ever the Mawloc lands, and whoever survives the "blast" gets moved outside of the Mawloc's range (therefore, not in Close Combat). Going on that assumption (or something close) here's my take on Cover Saves:

What disallows cover saves?

1. Not being in cover (or adequately in cover).
2. Being in close combat.
3. Weapons that disallow cover/wounds that disallow saves of all kinds.

1. Are the orks in question in cover? Technically yes, they have something that grants them cover at all times except when in CC.

2. When the Mawloc emerges (Movement phase), are the Mawloc and the unit in close combat? No. It wouldn't count as charging until the ensuing Assault Phase (unless there's some strange wording that says, "Now counts as locked in close combat" or something.) So, since the unit is not locked in combat, and is considered to be "in cover" from the KFF, it would receive a cover save. Once the assault phase begins, that cover save is lost.

3. Does the Mawloc's "weapon" say that it disallows cover? From context, it seems that it does not say that. Therefore, the unit would still get cover.

Lando got cover.

Pg 66 of rulebook

"Gettin' Ate"

Certain Models may have to "ate" other models, declare you are doing this, described in your particular codex, and have the model gettin' ate take a Initiative Test. If he fails, he gets ate.

No cover saves against "Gettin' Ate"

No cover saves, same as eye of wrath
GW has no game balance
dont buy their products
final destination

Karon wrote:Pg 66 of rulebook

"Gettin' Ate"

Certain Models may have to "ate" other models, declare you are doing this, described in your particular codex, and have the model gettin' ate take a Initiative Test. If he fails, he gets ate.

No cover saves against "Gettin' Ate"

I think this just about settles it. You get cover saves if you are entitled to cover.

Wait i dont see this 'gettin ate' section in my rules book? is the page number for BGB or BFBRB

It's bursting out of the damn ground swallowing people whole...I severely doubt hugging a tree will save your ass.

Kurgash wrote:It's bursting out of the damn ground swallowing people whole...I severely doubt hugging a tree will save your ass.

Fluff has no place in discussion of rules, but to humour you, don't you think standing inside the ruins of a building, with concrete floor and foundation, would surely make it harder for the evil bug to come out of the ground to eat you?

Speaking of Mawthings, what happens if you are on the 2nd, or 3rd floor of a ruin? Normaly the blast rules state that only one floor of a ruin is hit by a blast, but is there anything ruleswise preventing the mawthing to put his blast on a higher level of the ruin?

I can see it now.

Long fang squad on the top floor of a 3 story building.
Mawlok burrows up under it, lands on bottom floor but drops template on top floor and kills the whole team because no cover saves.

feth yeah, GW!

It would seem the blast marker being "directly over the spot the Mawloc emerges from" would be on the ground floor as well. 9" up could be read to not be "directly over" but rather 9" over.
As Deepstriking must be to the bottom level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Giant Moth wrote:don't you think standing inside the ruins of a building, with concrete floor and foundation, would surely make it harder for the evil bug to come out of the ground to eat you?

Sure, the DS scatter . . . covers that.

Giant Moth wrote:

Kurgash wrote:It's bursting out of the damn ground swallowing people whole...I severely doubt hugging a tree will save your ass.

Fluff has no place in discussion of rules, but to humour you, don't you think standing inside the ruins of a building, with concrete floor and foundation, would surely make it harder for the evil bug to come out of the ground to eat you?

Speaking of Mawthings, what happens if you are on the 2nd, or 3rd floor of a ruin? Normaly the blast rules state that only one floor of a ruin is hit by a blast, but is there anything ruleswise preventing the mawthing to put his blast on a higher level of the ruin?

Look up the Red Terror. Now, combine that with a worm smaller to those in Dune. Congrats, Mawloc.

Really, it's probably going to get FAQ'd so maybe a sense of 'hmm that sounds possible' is more relative than scrapping the bottom of the loophole barrel to save a squad of guys that was probably screwed to begin with

Okay lemme say this agian...

The attack obviously allows normal armor save. Because it has an AP value. It ends up disallowing them because AP is low enough for that but if it didn't allow saves at all, it would simply say X number of Strenght Y hits, no save allowed. Instead it gives stats as for a weapon.

The attack does not specifically disallow cover save, like a flamer does, for exemple.

Saves are not situational. You're in cover (as defined per the rules), you get a cover save, unless the attack specifically disallow it or unless the unit is in assault.

In conclusion, Armour saves -would- be allowed but AP prevents it. Invulnerable saves are allowed because it doesn't specifically say they're not. Cover saves are allowed because it doesn't specifically say they're not.

At the risk of sounding repetative, it does not say they are allowed - and THAT is what is required. Saying "it does not say I can't" only works if something says "I can".

All the rules for allowing cover saves (with the rules being quoted) require the attack to be a shooting attack for cover saves to apply.

kirsanth wrote:At the risk of sounding repetative, it does not say they are allowed - and THAT is what is required. Saying "it does not say I can't" only works if something says "I can".

All the rules for allowing cover saves (with the rules being quoted) require the attack to be a shooting attack for cover saves to apply.

Read the rules quotes I provided on the last page, saving throws do not work that way and do indeed 'say that you can'.

The qualification rules for gaining a cover saving throw have nothing to do with taking a cover saving throw or when you are allowed to take one, outside of granting one to be taken in a specific set of cases.
Stop clinging to them like they apply to a cover saving throws viability somehow.

kirsanth wrote:At the risk of sounding repetative, it does not say they are allowed - and THAT is what is required. Saying "it does not say I can't" only works if something says "I can".

All the rules for allowing cover saves (with the rules being quoted) require the attack to be a shooting attack for cover saves to apply.

Again, at the risk of sounding repetitive, saves cannot be taken from a Swooping Hawk Grenade pack, even if it is dropping upon a unit on the bottom floor of a building, because it's not a shooting attack?

As this is a YMDC discussion, and in no way directly effects the way that anyone games... take a second and look at the last two posters avatars... just for a second....

Yeah... you can laugh at that, it IS funny.

Big monster jumps out of ground, temporarily rearranging any cover that would be there, regardless of the type.

No. Cover. Saves.

YMDC, You make the call. I game in a way that actually makes sense, and finds an easy pathway, around the poorly written, and maintained rules that GW feels like dumping on me.

Ok, after getting my hands on my own codex, and starting to read what is actually written as far as rules go, I've come to the conclusion that THIS IS THE WORST WRITTEN CODEX EVER. Its confusing, and poorly written just in dealing with written rules. It seems that the codex was written with an attitude of "oh oh oh this would be cool" and writing something out which is then edited to keep it down to a page (more fluff, less rules on a page, but keep it to a page).

Now what does have to be remembered is that the 40k rules are a permissive rule set, just because it does not say you can do it, does not mean you can. Just because it says it doesn't give a cover save, doesn't mean you get one.

We have to decide what type of "attack" Terror from the Deep (TFTD) is. Is it a shooting weapon, is it a CC type weapon, is it none of these? The rule just doesn't say, all it says is it is a str 6 ap 2 hit.

So for TFTD, its a "large blast template" which doesn't actually exist in the rules in the BRB, but we will assume it is a large blast weapon. I say weapon because it gives a strength and AP, weapons being defined on pg 27 of the BRB and also Blast weapons being defined in that section. I do not believe it is a CCW as defined on pg 42, because those do not give a separate strength and more importantly no AP value. So I agree with InquisitorBob, it is a Weapon. What this ends up meaning that one would have to check armour, invulnerable, and cover saves where applicable. The difficulty of the cover saves, where exactly is the point of origin of the shot? Is it from the center of the large blast marker, or from any point in that large blast marker? It is a little difficult to actually check LOS to and from a large blast marker. Is it on the ground? Is it above the models but not touching them? Is it a giant cylinder from the table top to 5 feet above?

So the easiest things to account for: Anything that explicitly gives a cover save (i.e. KFF, Venomthrope), if the unit has half of its models in AREA terrain, or if the unit decides to Go to Ground. Otherwise work it out with your opponent on what you end up "seeing".

The only way to really confirm or dispute this would be finding an example of a wounding effect that gives a strength and AP of the effect, and doesn't allow saves. Otherwise we are waiting for GW to say something, again.

other difficulties that are created:
TFTD, you deep strike and end up on impassable terrain and an enemy model, what takes precedence, rolling on the mishap table, or ignoring the table because you deep strike onto a point occupied by another model?
To me it looks like by RAW, if the Mawloc Deep Strikes and come within 1" of an enemy model, but doesn't end up onto an enemy, they have to roll on the mishap table. Just seems pretty silly not to compensate for this per the rules.

puma713 wrote:When a Swooping Hawk drops its Swooping Hawk Grenades, it happens in the movement phase, not the shooting phase and there is no range on the weapon. Therefore, it is not a shooting attack. Therefore, no cover can be taken from Swooping Hawk Grenade Packs either. Sweet!

Actually it says "Work out hits and damage as normal". What is normal? well since it has a weapon profile, you deal with it as shooting, much as I believe now what TFTD does

Maxus wrote:

puma713 wrote:When a Swooping Hawk drops its Swooping Hawk Grenades, it happens in the movement phase, not the shooting phase and there is no range on the weapon. Therefore, it is not a shooting attack. Therefore, no cover can be taken from Swooping Hawk Grenade Packs either. Sweet!

Actually it says "Work out hits and damage as normal". What is normal? well since it has a weapon profile, you deal with it as shooting, much as I believe now what TFTD does

All that "normal" could mean is , you determine which models get hit (using the scatter die), you determine which models take wounds and which models take saves. That's all "normal" may mean. It may mean shooting, it may not. But according to some of the debates going on here, if there's no range and it doesn't happen in the shooting phase, then it's not a shooting attack. And if it's not a shooting attack, then there are no cover saves allowed.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll be getting an official FAQ from GW sometime in the near future.

Maxus wrote:I've come to the conclusion that THIS IS THE WORST WRITTEN CODEX EVER.

You obviously haven't read the Space Wolves Codex then. Compared to the Space Wolves one, the Tyranid codex is a Thesis on technical writing.

My father had a level of logic when I was a kid that I will apply here:

They get a cover save....BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!

Of course next comes the belt so nobody can argue hehe.

It would seem to me that they do get a cover save as it does not state cover saves are not allowed. Its more about game mechanics then anything else.

Fishboy wrote:Of course next comes the belt so nobody can argue hehe.

I find there are many situations in 40k for which taking off the belt for an ass-whooping would be appropriate.

Hawk grenades, deffkopta bombs, mawloc, to say any of these don't get cover saves is reading WAY to much into the rulebook. If it's a wound occurring from something besides someone getting hit in assault, and doesn't say it ignores cover saves, then you get cover. They weren't trying to write the rulebook for exactitude, so reading exact intentions into it will just come up with asinine responses.

Hmm, I don't think GW ever bothered to make rules on what would happen if you Deep Strike onto upper levels of buildings. On one side a Str 6 Ap 2 Blast is insane powerful, so you would think that it would give a Cover Save. On the other hand, the Mawloc does still scatter, before anyone argues, page 51 of the nid codex Terror From the Deep Rule Paragraph 1 "If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied be another model do not roll on the Mishap table, instead do the following." it goes on to tell you to do the blast and that vehicles are hit on rear armour. ect ect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It nowhere has any entry that it does not scatter

I should note something here.


The Mawloc does NOT place a S6 AP2 Large Blast.

It places the large blast marker, and "Every unit under the the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template." Exact wording from the codex.

Stating that a unit takes hits without citing it being a shooting attack is grounds for not calling a cover save. If so, you could take cover saves from bosspoles, vehicular explosions, perils of the warp, and so on.

wow mawlok yeah...

Broken Loose wrote:I should note something here.


The Mawloc does NOT place a S6 AP2 Large Blast.

It places the large blast marker, and "Every unit under the the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template." Exact wording from the codex.

Stating that a unit takes hits without citing it being a shooting attack is grounds for not calling a cover save. If so, you could take cover saves from bosspoles, vehicular explosions, perils of the warp, and so on.

What part of the saving throw rules are you missing? You can take them to prevent a wound unless they're denied.
You can certainly take a cover saving throw against the Mawloc, or against vehicular explosions, or even against a bosspole.

Read Perils of the Warp: "The psyker suffers 1 wound with no armour or cover saves allowed."
That is what a wounding rule or attack has to say to deny you the ability to take a cover saving throw if you have one to take.

The mawloc allows a save because it says anything that survives is displaced around it maintaining unit coherency.

Models could survive by the Tyranid player not passing every single wounding test.

Doubled - yes they did. If you deepstrike into Ruins it must be onto the lowest floor

WarmasterScott wrote:The mawloc allows a save because it says anything that survives is displaced around it maintaining unit coherency.

It could be invul saves .

doubled wrote:Hmm, I don't think GW ever bothered to make rules on what would happen if you Deep Strike onto upper levels of buildings.

I think they did. I think I read that if you DS in a building you DS on the ground floor. can't remember what page it is in the BRB, under DS I believe.

Gorkamorka wrote:What part of the saving throw rules are you missing? You can take them to prevent a wound unless they're denied.
You can certainly take a cover saving throw against the Mawloc, or against vehicular explosions, or even against a bosspole.

You can only take cover saves vs shooting attacks.

Unfortunately, the rules are ambiguous on what is a shooting attack.

We have no idea if a vehicle explosion is a shooting attack. We have no idea if a mawloc's ds blast is a shooting attack.

It's left up to the players to determine if an attack is a shooting attack and to see if a cover save is warranted.

imweasel wrote:
You can only take cover saves vs shooting attacks.

Unfortunately, the rules are ambiguous on what is a shooting attack.

We have no idea if a vehicle explosion is a shooting attack. We have no idea if a mawloc's ds blast is a shooting attack.

It's left up to the players to determine if an attack is a shooting attack and to see if a cover save is warranted.

Almost nothing in your post is true.

The only restrictions on taking cover saving throws are specific ones, as in templates or CC attacks.
Vehicular explosions are resolved as shooting.
And actual shooting attacks are almost universally clearly typed as such in the rules.

Gorkamorka wrote:Almost nothing in your post is true.

The only restrictions on taking cover saving throws are specific ones, as in templates or CC attacks.
Vehicular explosions are resolved as shooting.
And actual shooting attacks are almost universally clearly typed as such in the rules.

No, the restrictions on taking cover saving throws are restricted to shooting attacks. 40k is a permissive rules set. You need to have permission to take cover saves outside of shooting.

Vehicular explosions are resolved as shooting? Rules and page please.

The mawloc's ds attack is 'almost universally clearly typed as such in the rules'? Rules and page please that define what kind of attack this is.

There are many attacks that are 'not defined' and are left up to the players to determine what kind of attack it really represents.

imweasel wrote:
No, the restrictions on taking cover saving throws are restricted to shooting attacks. 40k is a permissive rules set. You need to have permission to take cover saves outside of shooting.

Vehicular explosions are resolved as shooting? Rules and page please.

The mawloc's ds attack is 'almost universally clearly typed as such in the rules'? Rules and page please that define what kind of attack this is.

There are many attacks that are 'not defined' and are left up to the players to determine what kind of attack it really represents.

The saving throw rules give you permission to take a saving throw against wounds. They have to be denied to not apply. A cover saving throw is a saving throw. Nowhere in the cover rules is a shooting attacks only restriction placed on saving throws granted by cover, anywhere. You are fabricating it. In fact, no restrictions are placed on it at all until other rules later in the book.

In the rules for vehicle damage effects, on page 67.

The mawlocs ds attack is not a shooting attack. It has no type, and it doesn't need one. That does not mean that things that are shooting attacks are not labeled as such or that we should apply labels to unlabeled attacks as you claim.

If you'd read the thread you'd know all of this. All of these points have been covered.

Gorkamorka wrote:Almost nothing in my post is true.

Fixed

imweasel wrote:There are many attacks that are 'not defined' and are left up to the players to determine what kind of attack it really represents.

By that statement, you are saying that Games Workshop builds games that are intentionally ambiguous with the intent of making the game play completely different from store to store, or even table to table within one store. I doubt very highly that their intent is to make the rules confusing, though they sometimes succeed in doing just that.

That said, there is nowhere in the book that states that cover saves are exclusive to shooting, and as far as I can tell, nothing to support to the rest of your claims.

Carnuss wrote:By that statement, you are saying that Games Workshop builds games that are intentionally ambiguous with the intent of making bucketloads of cash as people rush to buy broken and overpowered models for their armies only for them to be nerfed come FAQ/new codex and thus forcing them to buy a whole new round of models for even more buckets of cash.

Fix'd

It is probably worth noting that the Mawloc rules use a shooting attack profile to specify how things are wounded. Str 6 AP2 only applies to shooting attacks (or vehicle explosions, which have been demonstrated as being the same thing.) If it were a melee style attack, the rule should read something like:
"All models under the large blast marker suffer an automatic Str 6 hit with no armor saves allowed."

Of the two methods of dealing hits and wounds we know of, only shooting uses AP. Melee, the other, uses power weapon/no armor saves allowed.

Now, of course it is possible that GW inadvertantly invented a new method of dealing damage that they did not clearly define. However, they did this back with the Eldar codex with Swooping Hawks, if at all. It seems more likely that any attack with a profile of type "StrX APy 'Description of Stuff'" is a shooting attack, as described by shooting attack profiles.

Wehrkind wrote:It is probably worth noting that the Mawloc rules use a shooting attack profile to specify how things are wounded. Str 6 AP2 only applies to shooting attacks (or vehicle explosions, which have been demonstrated as being the same thing.) If it were a melee style attack, the rule should read something like:
"All models under the large blast marker suffer an automatic Str 6 hit with no armor saves allowed."

Just because an attack has an ap value, doesn't make it a shooting attack.

Unless you are stating if an attack has a str and ap rating it makes it a shooting attack?

imweasel wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:It is probably worth noting that the Mawloc rules use a shooting attack profile to specify how things are wounded. Str 6 AP2 only applies to shooting attacks (or vehicle explosions, which have been demonstrated as being the same thing.) If it were a melee style attack, the rule should read something like:
"All models under the large blast marker suffer an automatic Str 6 hit with no armor saves allowed."

Just because an attack has an ap value, doesn't make it a shooting attack.

Unless you are stating if an attack has a str and ap rating it makes it a shooting attack?

I am in fact saying just that. I will check my BRB at lunch though; I might be thinking of a rule from 4th that specified that as the case. Or conflating psychic shooting attacks' definition as have a weapons profile. I am really pretty certain that anything with an AP value is a shooting attack by definition, while melee attacks (the only other type) either allow armor saves or do not.

Of course there is the whole dangerous terrain thing, but that specifies no cover saves, and isn't due to unit actions.

Wehrkind wrote:I am in fact saying just that. I will check my BRB at lunch though; I might be thinking of a rule from 4th that specified that as the case. Or conflating psychic shooting attacks' definition as have a weapons profile. I am really pretty certain that anything with an AP value is a shooting attack by definition, while melee attacks (the only other type) either allow armor saves or do not.

Interesting. According to your definition, successful rending attacks are shooting attacks.

But applying your line of thinking, since mawloc's attack always hits rear armor on vehicles, it must be a cc attack?

a moderator wrote:

There are too many complaints coming off this thread.

Everyone please make sure to moderate your comments or some action will have to be taken.

Thank you.

Don't even have the codex. But im certain you're allowed no cover. Its obvious IMO.

kirsanth wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:Almost nothing in my post is true.

Fixed

Kirsanth, just saying someone is wrong, without actually refuting what was said, is trolling. It's against the Dakka rules, and you know it. Either ignore the post, or describe why you think it's so wrong.

@ imWeasel

I would reason that the Mawloc ability his rear armour for the same reason mines hit rear armour, it represents the attack coming up and hitting the thinly armoured underbelly of the tank.

imweasel wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:I am in fact saying just that. I will check my BRB at lunch though; I might be thinking of a rule from 4th that specified that as the case. Or conflating psychic shooting attacks' definition as have a weapons profile. I am really pretty certain that anything with an AP value is a shooting attack by definition, while melee attacks (the only other type) either allow armor saves or do not.

Interesting. According to your definition, successful rending attacks are shooting attacks.

But applying your line of thinking, since mawloc's attack always hits rear armor on vehicles, it must be a cc attack?

Ok I checked at lunch, and while only weapons defined in the shooting section of the rules have the full profile that the mawloc trick has, and melee weapons only have the description of what they do (doubles str, does not allow armor saves etc.) it does not specify that having the profile automatically means it is a shooting attack in the Shooting Section.

I would point out though, that I think Rending says shooting attacks are AP1 and melee Rending ignores armor saves. I will check that when I get home. (I wish I had seen that before lunch )

Also, a ranged weapon always hitting a certain side is not unheard of, and is merely a function of its rules. Examples are spore mines, barrage weapons, etc. A weapon that always hits on rear armor is not different from a weapon that ignores cover saves, or counts all armor values as no higher than 12 and the like.

Again, if the attack were a melee attack from the mawloc, listing an AP or defining which side of the vehicle it hits would not be necessary; as a monsterous critter each attack would negate armor and not allow FNP saves, and all melee attacks hit rear armor. Really, the fact that they felt the need to point out that it was AP2 (ignores armor) and always hits on rear armor seems to imply that it is a shooting attack, and so those effects can not be implied from the nature of the beast.

Wehrkind wrote:I would point out though, that I think Rending says shooting attacks are AP1 and melee Rending ignores armor saves. I will check that when I get home. (I wish I had seen that before lunch )

No

Any roll to wound of 6 with a rending weapon automatically causes a wound, regardless of the target's Toughness, and counts as AP2. Against vehicles, an armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total score.

Ok, I didn't have my book on hand. Thanks for quoting the rule.

doubled wrote:@ imWeasel

I would reason that the Mawloc ability his rear armour for the same reason mines hit rear armour, it represents the attack coming up and hitting the thinly armoured underbelly of the tank.

True. Or it could be considered a cc attack.

No one knows and we will have to wait several months to find out.

Gwar! wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:I would point out though, that I think Rending says shooting attacks are AP1 and melee Rending ignores armor saves. I will check that when I get home. (I wish I had seen that before lunch )

No

Any roll to wound of 6 with a rending weapon automatically causes a wound, regardless of the target's Toughness, and counts as AP2. Against vehicles, an armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total score.

Would that not mean that by RAW, Rending doesn't ignore Armour saves since CC attacks don't have an AP value?

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:Would that not mean that by RAW, Rending doesn't ignore Armour saves since CC attacks don't have an AP value?

I suppose successful cc rending attacks do have an ap value.

That quote is from the Weapons section describing rending. Appropriately, the CCW section has this to say about rending on CCWs:

brb p.42 wrote:... a rending close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat, the opponent automatically suffers a wound, regardless of its Toughness. These wounds count as wounds from a power weapon. Against vehicles, and armor penetration roll of 6 allows a further d3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total score.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I find imweasel's response frustrating. Why would you provide an answer like that? You didn't look up any rules but tried to confirm how rules worked. This type of posting - not looking at rules, leads to alot of unnecessary repetition and confusion in threads found in YMDC.

Dracos wrote:I find imweasel's response frustrating. Why would you provide an answer like that? You didn't look up any rules but tried to confirm how rules worked. This type of posting - not looking at rules, leads to alot of unnecessary repetition and confusion in threads found in YMDC.

Provide an answer like what? I am interested in seeing how people 'play by the rules'.

You said "i suppose cc attacks have ap".

CC attacks never have AP values. Saying so demonstrates a fundamental lack of rules knowledge, and certainly a lack of looking up the rule in question.

The rules for rending weapons are clear that they act as power weapons(edit: on a roll of 6 to wound of course). The fact that you were unaware of this just shows you didn't bother to look up the rules but you posted about the rule anyways. Why would you post about a rule without looking it up first?

Posting without looking up the rules can only lead to confusion and mistaken assumptions. For instance, now we have 3 posts when you could have just not posted, and waited for someone who knew the answer/was willing to look up the answer.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess what I'm really saying is that I found it frustrating that your broke the first tenet of YMDC:

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give a basis for a statement; without this, there can be no debate.

He's being sarcastic. The Mawloc's Gonna Eatcha template can't be considered a shooting attack just because it has an AP value; if that was a meaningful criteria then close combat rending attacks could be called shooting attacks, too.

Has ANYONE read Gorkamorka's posts? He's clearly laid out that cover saves can be taken against any wounds, irregardless of how they are received. This is covered in the saves section and means you always get a save (against wounds) unless you are specifically denied it. It does not say you have to take them from shooting attacks all it says is you take them from wounds. At that point shooting is the only way you could have taken a wound but later the Assault phase shows another way as do the psychic and Vehicle rules.

The rules allow you to take a save against any wound it does not state this applies only to shooting. Hence why it specifies cover saves do not apply to Assault and in other cases that cover saves do not apply (i.e. perils of the warp). Why would it have this if cover saves were not allowed except for shooting?

sourclams wrote:He's being sarcastic. The Mawloc's Gonna Eatcha template can't be considered a shooting attack just because it has an AP value; if that was a meaningful criteria then close combat rending attacks could be called shooting attacks, too.

What CC attack has AP?

Edit: Rather than waiting, and since Rending is the only answer you'll give, it takes the time to clarify it is treated like a power weapon as well. If you can prove that anything besides shooting attacks have an AP value, your statement is valid.

Gwar! wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:I would point out though, that I think Rending says shooting attacks are AP1 and melee Rending ignores armor saves. I will check that when I get home. (I wish I had seen that before lunch )

No

Any roll to wound of 6 with a rending weapon automatically causes a wound, regardless of the target's Toughness, and counts as AP2. Against vehicles, an armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to be rolled, with the result added to the total score.

Actually, you are incorrect GWAR. Shooting weapons with Rending autowound and count as AP2 on a 6 to wound, as per page 31 of the mini rule book. However, MELEE rending autowounds and COUNTS AS A POWER WEAPON on rolls of 6 to wound, as per page 42 of the mini rule book.

So, yea, my point stands that melee attacks do not have an AP value, only shooting attacks. Also, Melta bombs (and other grenades) also do not have an AP value attached to them, as they can only be used in melee. Just another example.

Edit: That answers Sourclams' post as well: Melee rending does NOT have an AP value. Instead it only counts as a power weapon. Similarly, shooting rending has AP, not power weapon qualities.

Apparently the "AP value defense" is as strong as the Chewbacca defense

This is not strictly true. Pistols have AP, but it ignored since they count as normal close combat weapon. Regardless (not irregardless), even if no CCWs have an AP, that does not mean they cannot.

As for being able to take any save available, this is true. And the rules for cover saves, as quoted in numerous places, let you know when cover saves are available.

Also, there is page 39 under Taking Saves.
"Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting." Oddly, people use that as justification for taking cover saves from things other than for shooting.

Kirsanth: Well, that might be true. Looking at the rules for AP (and armor piercing), they are all only in the shooting section, pages 20 and 27. In the section on Close Combat Weapons there is no use of AP anywhere, only that armor saves may not be taken or counts as a power weapon.
This is actually quite internally consistent too, as the only shooting weapon type that functions as a close combat weapon (a pistol) specifically disregards its Str and AP in favor of the user's strength (and lack of AP).

Also, as to the cover thing, my point at least is that there are only two types of attacks: Shooting and Melee. Vehicle explosions count as shooting attacks, as do Psychic Shooting Attacks, and anything that has an AP value. Likewise anything that counts as a power weapon or does not specify an AP is a melee attack (such as dangerous terrain tests). It is possible that others are arguing for a 3rd type of damage allocation, but I am not.

@Kir: And a pistol is not defined as a pistol in CC. It counts as a CC weapon. Otherwise when a 'zerker furious charged, he would get 3 Str 5 CC attacks and one Str 4 for the pistol and it would ignore 5+ armor. I don't know anyone that plays that way.

kirsanth wrote:Also, there is page 39 under Taking Saves.
"Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting." Oddly, people use that as justification for taking cover saves from things other than for shooting.

Actually, the real justification we are using is that after 5 pages, you still have not clearly shown why cover saves only apply from shooting attacks.

kirsanth wrote:At the risk of sounding repetative, it does not say they are allowed - and THAT is what is required. Saying "it does not say I can't" only works if something says "I can".

All the rules for allowing cover saves (with the rules being quoted) require the attack to be a shooting attack for cover saves to apply.

Gorkamorka wrote:

imweasel wrote:
No, the restrictions on taking cover saving throws are restricted to shooting attacks. 40k is a permissive rules set. You need to have permission to take cover saves outside of shooting.

Vehicular explosions are resolved as shooting? Rules and page please.

The mawloc's ds attack is 'almost universally clearly typed as such in the rules'? Rules and page please that define what kind of attack this is.

There are many attacks that are 'not defined' and are left up to the players to determine what kind of attack it really represents.

The saving throw rules give you permission to take a saving throw against wounds. They have to be denied to not apply. A cover saving throw is a saving throw. Nowhere in the cover rules is a shooting attacks only restriction placed on saving throws granted by cover, anywhere. You are fabricating it. In fact, no restrictions are placed on it at all until other rules later in the book.

In the rules for vehicle damage effects, on page 67.

The mawlocs ds attack is not a shooting attack. It has no type, and it doesn't need one. That does not mean that things that are shooting attacks are not labeled as such or that we should apply labels to unlabeled attacks as you claim.

If you'd read the thread you'd know all of this. All of these points have been covered.

Special note for this part:

Gorkamorka wrote:
The saving throw rules give you permission to take a saving throw against wounds. They have to be denied to not apply. A cover saving throw is a saving throw. Nowhere in the cover rules is a shooting attacks only restriction placed on saving throws granted by cover, anywhere. You are fabricating it. In fact, no restrictions are placed on it at all until other rules later in the book.

There are rules for allowing the cover save.

kirsanth wrote:Page 21.

"against flying debris and enemy shots"

"not affected by the Armor Piercing"

"protecting it from enemy shots"

"obscured from the point of view of the firer"

"may shoot over"

"check the firers' line of sight"

"from the firer's view"

There is more, and other pages.

kirsanth wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:The rules state that cover is a saving throw, with no caveats preventing you from taking it against anything that doesn't say otherwise if you have it.

So. . . it does not say you can't?

Not quite.
Nothing allows it.

To continue, since the rules on the page defining cover do not . . . cover it, let's move on. I am still leaving out most of the sentence, or I would need to post multiple pages of rules. People should be able to read them well enough in any case.

Page 22:

"models can always shoot, and be shot at . . . without receiving a cover save"

"are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from"

"Firing through units or area terrain"

"If a model fires through"

"Firing out of area terrain"

"Therefor they may fire through"

"in order to be able to shoot at all"

"If only one model is shooting, it will be easy to tell how many models in the target unit are in cover"

And again from page 21, since it really sums the issue up since it is describing "Cover Saves":
"so units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them"

The point is, nothing says you CAN take a cover save from anything other than shooting attacks -- even if one is entitled a cover save.

Saying "it does not say I cannot" only works when something else says you can.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, apologies for my . . . terse reply earlier.

You continue to quote the incorrect rules, as if the rules surrounding being in cover or gaining a cover saving throw somehow apply to the saving throw itself or taking it.

I understand more then.
You think that other than explicit permission to take a cover save (from KFF or a Venomthrope, for example) that it is ok to take a cover save without being in cover/obscured?
Which is to say, the rules I posted are the rules for cover saves. How is that incorrect?

Which is to say, the rules I posted are the rules for cover saves. How is that incorrect?

The rules you posted relate to when you are in cover (or when you GAIN a cover save) when you actually TAKE the cover save is "covered" in the section on save throws and that states you take them against wounds and is not specific on how you receive those wounds...

So you can take the save without it being granted?

That is the part of this issue that I am missing.

kirsanth wrote:So you can take the save without it being granted?

That is the part of this issue that I am missing.

Doesn't the KFF do that? (Since the OP said that this entire thread was based upon the KFF and not upon normal "cover saves".)

That was one part of the question. A secondary question, even.

kirsanth wrote:That was one part of the question. A secondary question, even.

Oooookay. But still, doesn't the KFF expressly grant it?

kirsanth wrote:
So you can take the save without it being granted?

That is the part of this issue that I am missing.
...
That was one part of the question. A secondary question, even.

I'm extremely confused about what is confusing you.

If you don't have a cover saving throw you can't take a cover saving throw against wounds.
If you have a cover saving throw you can take a cover saving throw against wounds unless it is denied.

The KFF grants units the saving throw all the time (outside of CC).

The rules for gaining a cover saving throw by being in cover in most other instances are vague or revolve around shooting mechanics. This is true.
That doesn't mean that cover saving throws only apply in shooting situations.

Gorkamorka wrote:The rules for gaining a cover saving throw by being in cover in most other instances are vague or revolve around shooting mechanics. This is true.
That doesn't mean that cover saving throws only apply in shooting situations.

So is this coming down to another 'example' list of when you can take cover save?

It's not 'inclusive'?

That's a big can of worms folks are opening, sorta like PotMS for lr's...

So you can take the save without it being granted?

It is granted in the saves section it says you can take saves against wounds received. Why is this difficult to ubnderstand.

A cover save is a type of save therefore you can take it against wounds received. How you aquire a cover save is another matter but if you are entitled to a cover save you can take it against any wounds received unless specified otherwise (like in the case of Assault or Perils of the Warp).

Whether you receive a cover save from area terrain against a non-shooting attack is muddy at best. You would certainly receive it from a KFF at all times (and other custom wargear).

Area terrain does say that you are "in cover, regardless of the direction of the shot" to me that doesn't narrow it down to just shooting as it says you are in cover but the implication could be that it only counts to shooting. However as Saves specifically say you can take them against any wounds and cover saves never states that you can't I'd go with specific > vague. It would certainly seem bizarre to allow a KFF save and not a save for area terrain.

I think the issue here is gaining a cover save vs a specific shooting attack vs having a cover save granted by a special rule (Venomthrope, KFF, Stormcaller)

All mechanics for gaining a cover save based on normal rules in the BRB function only when there is a defined shooting attack. The Mawlocs ability is not defined as a shooting or a CC attack, it is simply hits on the unit(s) that are touching the blast template.

Because it is not a shooting attack (or a CC attack) you would not be able to get a cover save from terrain or intervening units because nothing is "fired" or "shot." However, if you had a cover save granted by Venomthrope, KFF, Stormcaller, etc then you would be able to take the save, becuase the save was not granted by the BRB, which fails to allow saves vs non-shooting attacks; rather it was granted by a special rule with a more encompassing definition.

RAW: its not a shooting attack, it is just hits on the unit. Cover saves in normal circumstances only apply vs. shooting attacks
HYWPI: the strength of the attack is not in its statline, its in the ability to move units off objectives, auto-destroy them if they are in a tight position, or push them out of cover to be assaultable by the rest of your army. I will allow cover saves from terrain because I dont really care how many of your terminators I kill with this attack, they are getting eaten either way.

Demogerg

Has it about right I think. I'd certainly let someone take and area terrain save against me if I was using a Mawloc.

I disagree that it is not a shooting attack, or at least that it does not follow the mechanics for shooting type attacks. However, it is entirely possible that GW accidentally created a 3rd type of damage allocation that was neither shooting nor melee based.

However, I do agree that if you have a cover save (for whatever reason) you may take it unless specifically disallowed from it, just as you can take an armor or invulnerable save unless specifically denied it.

the rules for the Mawloc template never state you may NOT take cover saves, models in cover get covers saves per the BRB so I think its pretty RAW and reasonable if you are directly in cover, you get a cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
there are other attacks that happen during the movement phase.

slave snares

swooping hawk grenades

bib bombs from deffkoptas

harpy spore mine thingy

deffrolla


you get cover saves from them.

They have an attack profile, they dont happen in the shooting phase so "they are not shooting attacks" by the same logic people are claiming the mawloc template is not a shooting attack.

you get a cover save from the mawloc template.

the rules never state you may not take a cover save= cover save allowed.

I disagree that it is not a shooting attack, or at least that it does not follow the mechanics for shooting type attacks. However, it is entirely possible that GW accidentally created a 3rd type of damage allocation that was neither shooting nor melee based.

Yeah denying it s shooting attack begs the question of whether it can do any damage at all, if you are not using the shooting mechanics what mechanics are you using for determining the damage? If you are using the assault mechanics then why the AP as that is meaningless and everything gets it's armour save. I'm not sure how else you can do damage without using either set of mechanics.

It generally says when to take cover saves. It specifically says when not to. Specific > general? Fling has an excellent point as well. It doesn't give permission in the book to use this magical third type of attack, so I guess you can't use it at all? CC attacks don't have/use AP (we've proven that much). Shooting attacks all have AP. This is either a shooting attack and does damage, or is a third type of attack and does no damage since there aren't rules for it.

To wit:
Q. Is a vehicle hit by a Vengeful Tornado result
literally hit on its side armour, and therefore
does it get the ‘Obscured’ cover save if Njal
cannot see one of its sides?
A. No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save.

Wait, if we're going to let other books' FAQs spill over then I take a Summoned Greater Daemon as my HQ and Summoned Less Daemons as my mandatory troops from my CSM codex.

This has been . . . covered.

Guy, guys...

All of this is a Moot Point, because Terror from the Deep doesn't actually do anything!

A Cookie for whoever points out why first

kirsanth wrote:To wit:
Q. Is a vehicle hit by a Vengeful Tornado result
literally hit on its side armour, and therefore
does it get the ‘Obscured’ cover save if Njal
cannot see one of its sides?
A. No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save.

Case and point.

its not some mystical third type of attack that has never been encounted before, its simply hits with a strength and AP value equal to the number of models under or touching the large blast template.

also, you get cover only from Shooting Attacks (or the aforementioned KFF, Venomthrope, Storm Caller), and this attack has its own complete description on how it is performed with no reference to being a shooting attack whatsoever.

"the rules for the Mawloc template never state you may NOT take cover saves" Backwards and circular logic. You must be allowed a cover save to take a cover save. the normal BRB rules for cover saves only function against shooting attacks, which this is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:Guy, guys...

All of this is a Moot Point, because Terror from the Deep doesn't actually do anything!

A Cookie for whoever points out why first

because you cannot place a model on top of another model as the "marker" for deep striking.

kirsanth wrote:To wit:
Q. Is a vehicle hit by a Vengeful Tornado result
literally hit on its side armour, and therefore
does it get the ‘Obscured’ cover save if Njal
cannot see one of its sides?
A. No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save.

You'll also note that the ability does not have an AP characteristic which leads us back to the conclusion that only those attacks that have an AP are shooting attacks...

round and round we go....


A better argument would have been to use Chain Lightening which does have an AP value. Still, the people at GW that write FAQs are on crack anyway because it takes place "at the end of the shooting phase"; keywork, shooting.

Meh. I can't believe people are still arguing this.
Back to lurking...

Demogerg wrote:because you cannot place a model on top of another model as the "marker" for deep striking.

Nope, that's not it. And you can actually.

That is an assumption.

It never states anywhere that ONLY shooting attacks have AP. Only ones have them listed, but that is NOT a bona fide rule.

Also, as I pointed out, pistols techincally have an AP and are CC. The Str and AP is ignored as they count as a "normal close combat weapon" but the AP on them does not "magically" disappear. There is a rule saying it just does not apply, as they are a normal CCW.

You can shoot a pistol....and it doesn't have an AP value in CC, it just confers an additional attack on an assault.

Please, someone show me one example of a close combat or other attack that has an AP.

I think we can safely file this under "needs an FAQ." Until then I'll be d6ing it I suppose :/

agnosto wrote:You can shoot a pistol....and it doesn't have an AP value in CC, it just confers an additional attack on an assault.

Please, someone show me one example of a close combat or other attack that has an AP.

Show me a rule saying only shooting attacks have AP.

It never states anywhere that ONLY shooting attacks have AP. Only ones have them listed, but that is NOT a bona fide rule.

Also, as I pointed out, pistols techincally have an AP and are CC. The Str and AP is ignored as they count as a "normal close combat weapon" but the AP on them does not "magically" disappear. There is a rule saying it just does not apply, as they are a normal CCW.

This pistol thing is just smoke when you attack with a pistol in CC it does not use an AP the argument about AP is that only shooting attacks use AP, the pistol does not use AP when it is used to attack in CC.

Not saying I agree with eth AP argument just pointing out the pistol thing is meaningless.

If it is not a shooting attack how does it do ANY damage? What game mechanics are you using for it to do ANY damage?

FlingitNow wrote:If it is not a shooting attack how does it do ANY damage? What game mechanics are you using for it to do ANY damage?

It is as meaningful as the AP arguement. Which is, admittedly negligible. As for the game mechanics, they are written into the Mawlock rules. Which, I think Gwar! is picking on the "template" thing again, btw.

kirsanth wrote:

agnosto wrote:You can shoot a pistol....and it doesn't have an AP value in CC, it just confers an additional attack on an assault.

Please, someone show me one example of a close combat or other attack that has an AP.

Show me a rule saying only shooting attacks have AP.

Show me a rule that says this is anything other than a shooting attack. I can't, you can't, nobody can. Show me the rule that says you can place a model on top of another model. Show me a rule that says you owe me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when they FAQ this thing to shut up all the power gamers that want to make playing as non-fun as possible.

I have to give you credit for sticking to your guns.

kirsanth wrote:To wit:
Q. Is a vehicle hit by a Vengeful Tornado result
literally hit on its side armour, and therefore
does it get the ‘Obscured’ cover save if Njal
cannot see one of its sides?
A. No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack
and therefore allows no cover save.

Hey, a FAQ answer that breaks RAW that I can get riled up about finally, huzzah.
You'll also notice the question specifies obscured by physical obscurement from Njal, which we've already discussed non-shooting attacks not working correctly with.
Round and round.

kirsanth wrote:

agnosto wrote:You can shoot a pistol....and it doesn't have an AP value in CC, it just confers an additional attack on an assault.

Please, someone show me one example of a close combat or other attack that has an AP.

Show me a rule saying only shooting attacks have AP.

Everything that affects a CC weapon with AP or would give it an AP also goes on to clarify what type of CC weapon it is. Again, where is the AP rule under CC section? Basically there is precedent that if something has AP, it is a shot. The only way to calculate damage in the book with an AP value is under shooting. So either it's a normal (armor allowing) CC attack, a shooting attack or a third type that can't do damage.

Shorely the attack is supposed to be the "Flying Debris" being thrown up into the air around the Mawloc appears? So that would say to me that the attack is a ranged attack not a cc as the mawloc is not there to actually hit them?

fireflyer wrote:Shorely the attack is supposed to be the "Flying Debris" being thrown up into the air around the Mawloc appears? So that would say to me that the attack is a ranged attack not a cc as the mawloc is not there to actually hit them?

Where is the model on the board when it happens? It isn't. Why would it not be a "power weapon" attack then?

Gorkamorka wrote:You'll also notice the question specifies obscured by physical obscurement from Njal, which we've already discussed non-shooting attacks not working correctly with.

And you will notice the answer does not concern itself with the details, it is explaining how the general rules work. "No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack and therefore allows no cover save." Simplicity.

fireflyer wrote:Shorely the attack is supposed to be the "Flying Debris" being thrown up into the air around the Mawloc appears? So that would say to me that the attack is a ranged attack not a cc as the mawloc is not there to actually hit them?

Sorry, not even in the (lack of) fluff text for the rule "Terror from the Deep" does it describe it as flying debris or any other similar term that could be substituted as such.

Also, to answer Gwar!s inquiry, could it be that it uses the Large Blast Template? insted of the Large Blast Marker

So by RAW Vengeful tornado does no damage?

Demogerg wrote:Also, to answer Gwar!s inquiry, could it be that it uses the Large Blast Template? insted of the Large Blast Marker

Ding Ding Ding! We have a Weiner!

Have a cookie!

Gwar! wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Also, to answer Gwar!s inquiry, could it be that it uses the Large Blast Template? insted of the Large Blast Marker

Ding Ding Ding! We have a Weiner!

Have a cookie!

NOM NOM NOM

COOKIE!

(I actually will eat one of the cookies I store in my desk here at work for just this purpose)

EDIT: That cookie was Delicious.

I want a cookie too! I called that 7 posts earlier, LOL.

kirsanth wrote:I want a cookie too! I called that 7 posts earlier, LOL.

Yeah but no-one likes you

Oh, all right. Carry on then!



I do not really like sweets anyway.

hehe

On a topical note, however, there are a number of attacks that should be classified as shooting that are not. AP is a red herring, but there are a number of attacks that will cause issue without FAQ or assumptions.

it doesn't roll BS and hits, it just happens. No cover save.

kirsanth wrote:AP is a red herring, but there are a number of attacks that will cause issue without FAQ or assumptions.

Such as? Please try to list ones that match the criteria to this one.

Spore mines drifting.

FlingitNow wrote:

I disagree that it is not a shooting attack, or at least that it does not follow the mechanics for shooting type attacks. However, it is entirely possible that GW accidentally created a 3rd type of damage allocation that was neither shooting nor melee based.

Yeah denying it s shooting attack begs the question of whether it can do any damage at all, if you are not using the shooting mechanics what mechanics are you using for determining the damage? If you are using the assault mechanics then why the AP as that is meaningless and everything gets it's armour save. I'm not sure how else you can do damage without using either set of mechanics.

Are you checking for LoS? Are you rolling a D6-BS to determine the final resting place of the marker? Does the rule say to work out the hit using the rules for Blast Markers? Its execution and resolution are all self-contained. Meaning the mechanics you are looking for are all spelled out in the rule itself. Terror from the Deep is a Deep Strike attack. The rule simply states that models wholly or partially covered by the marker are hit with a ST6 AP2 hit. Vehicles are hit on the blah, blah, blah. There is nothing in the rule that states it counts as a shooting attack. I'm not seeing how you can infer it to be, or even count as, a shooting attack.

I agree with Demogerg that if the unit hit by Terror from the Deep is provided a Cover Save outside of the normal rules for determining and awarding such a save (e.g., KFF, Venomthrope, etc) then the affected unit should get a cover save.

Slightly off topic...Isn't there a bit about units that are locked in combat must try to stay in B2B with enemy models. If so, I like the ability of the Mawloc to potentially break apart an assault on my turn Though I think in practice that's going to be tough to pull off.

-Yad

It would be from the same codex >.< This things needs a damn FAQ already. I would still classify those as cover save-able (assuming we're just talking about the template going off, not when they initially DS in).

Allowing a 4+ cover save until the FAQ is out will be probably the route to go for those who do not like confrontations.

tetrisphreak wrote:Allowing a 4+ cover save until the FAQ is out will be probably the route to go for those who do not like confrontations.

Kinda hard considering we play a table top war game.

I know, funny right? I prefer a contest of wit against a friend to a screaming match over whether or not a toy soldier dies, however. I try to take the high road but have been known to throw a few temper tantrums of my own once in a while.

Even though I think they do get one, I know another side with a halfway decent argument exists so I'm willing to D6 it til then. IRL I'd never nitpick this much, but that's what the internet is for

but that's what the internet is for

I was realiably informed it was for porn I know it was true they had a song and everything!

comment withdrawn

Aftersong wrote:maybe this has been mentioned (I only read the first and last page of the thread) but can someone give me an example of a non shooting attack with an ap value? Otherwise I'm fairly certain AP=shooting=able to take a coversave.

Do you get a coversave vs swooping hawk det packs? they don't "shoot" them

This has already been mentioned. On this same page. The one you allegedly read.