Ok ok ok, I know it sounds off, but I was playing a game yesterday against some marines and I had an opportunity to hit a combat squad with a deffrolla.

So being the first time I have been left with a still moving wagon with a rolla and no good vehicle targets in range I don't know about what kind of ap it has, neither does my opponent. Okay so I pull out the book, take a look, it says nothing about ap or saves so you get your saves as normal, then I guess out of curiosity he asks about cover saves, so he continues to roll his saves and I take another look at the deffrolla entry and wouldn't you know it? The entry says nothing about cover saves or if the attack is to be counted as close combat (no cover save) or shooting (cover allowed). We agree it's probably not allowed (not that it mattered, his 3+ is better than a cover save) and continued to play.

Later that night I get home and wanted to look deeper into it just so I know whats up. Well after taking a look threw the tank shock section I could find nothing that says you may or may not take cover saves as tank shocking it's self causes no wounds (duh!)

Now I personally would play no cover saves and I doubt anyone would play any differently but I am curious about how dakka thinks of this little RAW quirey. And if there is something I have missed.

COver saves against a deffrolla is an ongoing debate, so you have to draw your own conclusions.

One argument is that the squad would dive for cover and hence get a cover save. The other is that as its not a shooting attack, no cover saves apply. As I said, you have to make your own mind up abou tthat one!
One thing I can say though, is that the deffrolla has no AP and does not ignore armour saves. So if you deffrolla a terminator squad, prepare to be disappointed!

It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

No cover saves

liam0404 wrote:COver saves against a deffrolla is an ongoing debate, so you have to draw your own conclusions.

One argument is that the squad would dive for cover and hence get a cover save. The other is that as its not a shooting attack, no cover saves apply. As I said, you have to make your own mind up abou tthat one!
One thing I can say though, is that the deffrolla has no AP and does not ignore armour saves. So if you deffrolla a terminator squad, prepare to be disappointed!

I ran the "diving into cover" idea threw my head but I decided it was a little too "adding realism" to bring that argument to a RAW discussion, though in play I am a very flexible and generous player, if someone wanted to make that argument in game I might let it fly, depending on if I was in a tourny or not, most often I'm not though.

Gwar! wrote:It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm splitting hairs but it's sorta why I made this thread, besides knowing you, you might enjoy it.

To make the distinction to call it "not a shooting attack" you would have to make the jump of also calling it "a close combat attack" wouldn't you? I mean to my knowledge (which may be wrong!) there is no section in the BRB covering just wounds, it only covers wounds from shooting, close combat and difficult terrain. Ignoring difficult terrain which would bring up some more problems I don't see any other way to take a wound that isn't codex specific.

Now I can accept the answer of "it's broken but I play it this way" but I know you like to bring pure RAW to these arguments so I ask how you came to that answer.

Gwar! wrote:It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

Terror from the Deep and Spirit Leech are shooting attacks?

Actually, I just perused the rules for saves.

The only times saves are mentioned is in the shooting rules and the assault rules. The shooting rules appear to be the "general" rules, where it discusses all the different saves a squad can get. The assault rules are more specific, and explicitly forbid taking cover saves against close combat wounds. But, it appears cover saves are the default against unspecified wounds.

Where does it say that cover saves only apply to shooting attacks?

Grakmar wrote:Where does it say that cover saves only apply to shooting attacks?

It does not.
I have previously argued in favor of the interpretation that they do only apply to shooting attacks based upon the wording of the rules.

That does not appear to be correct, however--and GW (FAQs) list other non-shooting attacks as allowing cover saves.

Gwar! wrote:It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

Exactly. Why is there any debate? A deff rolla is a special attack that occurs as the result of a tank shock move during the movement phase. Furthermore it occurs when the unit is in base contact with the vehicle. This is like saying you can take cover saves from tau flechette launchers if one tank shocks you, which you can't.

juraigamer wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

Exactly. Why is there any debate? A deff rolla is a special attack that occurs as the result of a tank shock move during the movement phase.

TftD occurs in the movement phase as well, during a deepstrike.
Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack, or DoM could never use Cataclysm.

etc.

kirsanth wrote:

juraigamer wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It is not a shooting attack so you cannot take cover saves against it.

Exactly. Why is there any debate? A deff rolla is a special attack that occurs as the result of a tank shock move during the movement phase.

TftD occurs in the movement phase as well, during a deepstrike.
Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack, or DoM could never use Cataclysm.

etc.

RaW, you don't get Cover saves against either of them...

Gwar! wrote:RaW, you don't get Cover saves against either of them...

I knew you were going to say that.

See what I mean about the debate?!?!

You get cover saves from Vehicle explosions. Skimmers get a juke save from Deff Rollas.
I say you'd get a cover save from cover you are in.

I thought cover saves from explosions was pretty questionable?

And skimmers getting a save isn't a cover save, it's just part of being a skimmer.

I think that it's hard to imagine why they'd get cover saves. Even fluff arguments don't work that well, as you can just call the d6 for hits part of the squad diving for cover. Or say that units in cover have nowhere to run too...

Besides, wouldn't any unit hit be a deffrolla have a hard time claiming a cover save anyway?

One argument which was raised was that unless a deffrolla took a dangerous terrain test (i.e. when moving through cover) then no cover saves would apply (as there was no cover to hide behind).

That one sort of made sense. I genuinely think it's one of those things which you need to house rule.

Me personally, I feel the deffrolla falls into a special "vehicle attack" category, also shared by "vehicles explodes" results. My basis for this argument, is that it's neither a close combat attack or a shooting attack - it therefore has to fall into some other category. The hits cause by "vehicle explodes!" don't allow cover, and I don't feel that they should apply for the deffrolla either. However, if an opponent asked for it during a friendly game, i'd allow it.

Polonius wrote:Besides, wouldn't any unit hit be a deffrolla have a hard time claiming a cover save anyway?

A unit in area terrain would be able to claim a cover save.

forkbanger wrote:

Polonius wrote:Besides, wouldn't any unit hit be a deffrolla have a hard time claiming a cover save anyway?

A unit in area terrain would be able to claim a cover save.

Unless the deff rolla went into the area terrain. Wouldn't the rule about shooting through 2" of area terrain deny the unit hiding a cover save?

Re-reading the rules, the cover saves rules, while written from a "shooting" perspective, never restrict themselves to shooting. In fact, only the explicit language in the assault chapter seems to disallow cover in assault.

I think I'm changing my mind on this issue. Sure, why the hell not. It's just going to be kind of tricky.

Polonius wrote:Unless the deff rolla went into the area terrain. Wouldn't the rule about shooting through 2" of area terrain deny the unit hiding a cover save?

Re-reading the rules, the cover saves rules, while written from a "shooting" perspective, never restrict themselves to shooting. In fact, only the explicit language in the assault chapter seems to disallow cover in assault.

I think I'm changing my mind on this issue. Sure, why the hell not. It's just going to be kind of tricky.

You're specifically not allowed cover saves versus assaults. The rest of the time, you seem to be fine- the Doom, Mawlocs, whatever. You seem to need area terrain to claim the save most of the time, as some cover saves depend on having a firer and target, and the line of sight between them.

forkbanger wrote:

Polonius wrote:Unless the deff rolla went into the area terrain. Wouldn't the rule about shooting through 2" of area terrain deny the unit hiding a cover save?

Re-reading the rules, the cover saves rules, while written from a "shooting" perspective, never restrict themselves to shooting. In fact, only the explicit language in the assault chapter seems to disallow cover in assault.

I think I'm changing my mind on this issue. Sure, why the hell not. It's just going to be kind of tricky.

You're specifically not allowed cover saves versus assaults. The rest of the time, you seem to be fine- the Doom, Mawlocs, whatever. You seem to need area terrain to claim the save most of the time, as some cover saves depend on having a firer and target, and the line of sight between them.

Except for the fact that the cover save rules only show up in the shooting phase rules against shooting attacks.

Non Shooting attacks do not follow those rules, so you cannot use them to claim cover saves.

By that argument, no unit can take a wound in the movement phase, as the only time it describes the wounding process is in shooting (and by reference assault).

Just because a section is in one part of the rules doesn't mean it only applies then, particularly when the rules are written with multiple uses in mind.

I'm not a fan of cover saves outside of shooting, as I think that the consistently shooting based language of the cover save section shows the thought pretty well. but it's hard to ignore that the Saving throw section opens by stating both armor and cover as types of saves, and the words "from a shooting attack" never follow any statements about what models receive a cover save.

Polonius wrote:By that argument, no unit can take a wound in the movement phase, as the only time it describes the wounding process is in shooting (and by reference assault).

You would be correct. There is only one way that you can actually take wounds in the movement phase and that is through Dangerous Terrain, which references the shooting rules also. (RaW of course, but that hasn't stopped GW making silly rules that don't technically work, like the Mawlocs rule.)

Even then, the rules for Dangerous Terrain only provide for models suffering a wound, not being removed from the game.

I think once you start playing that models can in fact take wounds and be removed as casualties during the movement phase (which we kind of need to do given the increasing number of ways they happen), we have to decide what rules to incorporate.

I think the best approach is to do what they did for assaulting: include all the rules, and then strike out what they didn't want (in this case, cover saves).

If we attempt to read GW's mind as little as possible, I think saying "wounds in movement are handled just like wounds from shooting," patches the problem with the least additional rules.

This is one problem with trying to read intent: do dangerous terrain and assault phase wounds not get cover saves because GW singles them out, or because GW through they were the only ways to take wounds outside of shooting?

In other words, are shooting wounds special (in that they can take cover saves) or are they the baseline (in that the rules specifically point out the special cases that dont' get cover).

Wow I did not expect such a big debate from this, And with so many good points this is turning out to be more difficult than I expected.

First off just to clear any problems, it should be assumed that the unit being hit with the deffrolla is in difficult area terrain I don't think the argument for gaining a cover save stands up without that assumption.

also to gwar's last point, wouldn't that mean the deffrolla doesn't work as it happens in the movement phase? Doesn't the deffrolla entry in the codex allow wounds to be taken in the movement phase? And by your reasoning then would it be to far a jump to say then that no armor or invulnerable saves could be taken as there is no explanation of taking them in the movement section other than a dangerous terrain test which the deffrolla is obviously not?

I personally just can't see it working that way myself, but on the other hand I can't decide how to make a definitive choice on how it should properly be handled. On one hand nothing is stopping a unit within area terrain from taking there cover save as other than the cover save rule being in the shooting section there is nothing saying it cannot be taken from wounds other than shooting, or even in another phase were as the assault rules are the rules that seem to stop a cover save from being taken . On the other hand it isn't happening in the shooting phase (this seems to be it's own argument in it's own right) and well it isn't a shooting attack, and has no shooting profile of any sort.

*Currently massaging beard...

The point is, there are only rules for actually handling wounds, casualties, etc. in the shooting phase. Assault incorporates them, but outside of that... there's no "default" way to handle wounds.

So, what this means is, by RAW, the question isn't about cover saves, because there's no mechanism to even assign the wounds!

Now, that's clearly not going to work out. So, we need a way to handle those wounds. That's the crux of the debate. Not how to follow the RAW, but how to best break the RAW.

we always (house rule it) play it like so......

If a unit just moves out of the way, they get cover but must take a dangerous terrain check. here we simply try to balance it against CC vrs shooting for cover so the dnagerous terrain check represents units in cover not moving fast enough. (1 d6 deff rolla hits still apply as well)

If the unit does a death or glory shooting attack they get cover and 2d6 hits apply (as per normal deff rolla rules) so the attack is based as shooting

If the unit does a CC death or glory no cover applies as the defending unit chose CC rather than shooting to defend. (2d6 deff rolla attacks as per deff rolla rules) so the attack is based as CC

So in general we let the defender decide what type of attack it is based on how they choose to react.

Note we only allow cover if the unit actually is in cover or within 2 inches of cover the battlewagon drove through to hit them.

Polonius wrote:The point is, there are only rules for actually handling wounds, casualties, etc. in the shooting phase. Assault incorporates them, but outside of that... there's no "default" way to handle wounds.

So, what this means is, by RAW, the question isn't about cover saves, because there's no mechanism to even assign the wounds!

Now, that's clearly not going to work out. So, we need a way to handle those wounds. That's the crux of the debate. Not how to follow the RAW, but how to best break the RAW.

I take your argument of not having mechanism to assign the wounds and ask: does the deffrolla entry surpass this problem in the BRB as it gives you an easy rule set to follow to assign these wounds? If not why? If so then because the deffrolla does not state you cannot take cover saves, as the assault rules do, then can you take them? Or can you take no saves as there is no way to make a save that is not from dangerous terrain in the movement phase?

In my mind it is quite clear that there is a way to assign wounds in the movement phase, as per the codex, the question is how to handle the saves as there is no save explanation in the rolla entry or the movement phase entry.

Except there isn't. What happens when a unit takes d6 Strength 10 hits?

If you can answer using only the codex, I'll agree with you.

You can't. I can say, "ok, my unit takes... 4 S 10 hits. Are you done moving?"

The only way hits turn into wounds is via the mechanics outlined in the shooting section.

Good point, I did not think of that before. I was completely unaware of that little problem, now that you point it out that really changes the whole thing all together.

I guess it comes right down to a house rule, no if ands or buts. I will just have to talk with the people I play with to come to a conclusion of how we shall play it in the future.

Most people's gut reaction would be no to cover saves. Unless they want to claim them, of course...

Certain armies can shoot in the movement phase, so you can take wounds in the movement phase. Why couldn't a unit go to ground? A skimmer that moved flat out in it's previous movement phase could claim a 4+ cover save, though turbo-boosting bikes couldn't (as it specifies next opponent shooting phase).

Wasn't deffrolla erratta'd to be essentially a tank-shock/ramming maneuver? I thought you couldn't take a save with either of those unless you're a skimmer.

Don't even get into the debate as to whether you can take a save against a deff rolla with a 3+ skimmer dodge!

yea that ones just a whole gigantic can of worms....and im still waiting for a definitive answer on this myself. maybe heck will freeze over and GW will release a surprize proper FAQ as a bonus for buying anything dark eldar.

RAW, Using a Deff Rolla is neither a shooting attack nor a close combat attack. It's specifically written as a special kind of tank shock ("Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deff Rolla causes..." etc). So following the RAW for a close combat attack is not accurate. Using the Deff Rolla is more akin to Ramming, which is another special type of Tank Shock.

However, as neither a Tank Shock nor a Ram causes wounds, and so neither explicitly addresses saves, there simply are no RAW. The closest guidance possible, from which you can interpret RAI from, is the Death or Glory! section.

My personal interpretation is that there can be no cover save against ramming, tank shocking, or Deff Rolla attacks (aside from Skimmer exceptions). However, I'm calling it RAI, not RAW.

Some people seem to have a misunderstanding of exactly what a cover save actually is. Cover does not merely block LOS, that is concealment (ie a bush, a sheet hanging on a clothesline etc). Cover pysically blocks a target whatever may be striking it so it actually may deflect or block the incoming attack/ strike/ weapon. So yes, a unit in cover (perhaps a reinforced bunker) would have phsyical protection from attacks, which might possibly include a deffrolla attack.

This is all more rlevenat to the fluff or RAI....altho this whole area is pretty deep into the RAI since its not clearly covered in the RAW.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Some people seem to have a misunderstanding of exactly what a cover save actually is. Cover does not merely block LOS, that is concealment (ie a bush, a sheet hanging on a clothesline etc). Cover pysically blocks a target whatever may be striking it so it actually may deflect or block the incoming attack/ strike/ weapon. So yes, a unit in cover (perhaps a reinforced bunker) would have phsyical protection from attacks, which might possibly include a deffrolla attack.

Yes, which is why shooting through a friendly unit causes the friendly unit to lose models as their soft squishy bodies block the bullets...

whut?

If a unit is shooting through a friendly unit then cover is provided by the various forms of incentive that the training programs in the 40k universe offer. IG it would likely involve a short visit from the inquisition, while for the eldar it would probably lead to the offender being assigned to basket weaving.

This is actually more a matter of concealment or possibly "soft" cover in real life military terms, but all of these (concealment, soft cover and hard cover) are lumped together and called cover in 40k.

So in 40k the term cover can mean quite a variety of things, all the way from a unit being distracted while firing through some of their friends to an attack being deflected by an armored bunker wall. Since all forms of cover are lumped together in 40k, one needs to remember: yes some forms of cover can stop something like a deffrolla. Many forms of cover cannot, but 40k treats all forms of cover to be the same in this regard. There is only a difference in how likely the attack is stopped, be it a 6+ or a 3+ save they can all provide protection from anything. Yes, this does mean that in 40k a 1000 lb bomb can be blocked at times by light vegetation.


Sliggoth

Just assume weapons have a "safety" setting built in, where if a target is below a certain distance, the projectile isn't active. That explains why an intervening unit can provide cover, but doesn't take any casualties. And, why you don't need to worry about things like friendly fire inside the firing squad.

It makes the most sense for Bolters. Marines set a range to target, and the projected grenade only goes off if it hits something only after the specified range, otherwise, it doesn't explode.

I have no idea how this would work for other weapons though...

What's that have to do with deffrollas?

My opinion is that the rolla does it's "damage" by smashing up close and personal. The "closest" to this type of attack Is CC. It's definitely not a ranged attack. Therefore cover should not apply, and my gaming group plays it this way. Now, the whole skimmers avoid deffrollas on 3+ has not Been solved. But infantry should definitely not get cover from it. For chrissake it's a gigantic steamroller in front if a several ton chunk of speeding metal. ... How exactly is cover going to save you?

DarthSpader wrote:How exactly is cover going to save you?

Ducking into a hole in the terrain so that it just goes over would work.

kirsanth wrote:How exactly is cover going to save you? Ducking into a hole in the terrain so that it just goes over would work.

If you could theoretically duck into a hole all the time, why wouldn't you perpetually get a cover save?

IMO the game has an explanation for the situation you described - "going to ground".

If you want to argue that you would have to ground to get a coversave from the deffrolla, that would make more sense.

If we're resorting to fluff for a resolution, that is.

I was responding to the question I quoted; this goes with the assumption the affected unit is in area terrain--just about the only way a model could theoretically claim cover in this case.

And please note that 40k has many many types of cover. A reinforced bunker is cover, does the idea that a 3 foot thick steel and concrete wall stop a rolla seem unlikely? The same thought can be applied to the old traditional tank traps, or for that matter a boulder....



Sliggoth

Meh, we came to a consensus in my FLGS and treated it like a close combat attack, with armor/invuln saves allowed.

Armor/invun is definitly applicable. But I would argue against cover, since the models are effectively in BTB contact, thus CC. cover shouldn't play into it.

DarthSpader wrote:Armor/invun is definitly applicable. But I would argue against cover, since the models are effectively in BTB contact, thus CC. cover shouldn't play into it.

If armor and invuln are "definitely applicable", then so is cover. They're the exact same mechanic from the same section and nothing says that cover specially doesn't apply.

The double standard with this stuff is annoying as hell.
If you want your 2+ termi save, then I sure as hell want my 4+ kff save. If you want to deny me it, then I'm perfectly justified doing the exact same thing right back.

From a fluff standpoint, ducking behind a hedge or pile of rubble probably wouldn't do much to save you from a weapon that has no problem chewing up land raiders and monoliths.

Uh the FAQ actually permits armor and invun saves. Both of those are also available during a close combat. Cover saves are NOT available in close combat and only apply to ranged attacks that draw a LOS through cover. This includes being in area terrain since the LOS traces through it.

The deffrolla is not a ranged attack so cover will not apply. Plain and simple. Unless you want that 4+ kff vrs that powerfist?

augustus5 wrote:From a fluff standpoint, ducking behind a hedge or pile of rubble probably wouldn't do much to save you from a weapon that has no problem chewing up land raiders and monoliths.

But wearing 5+ flak armor would?

darthSpader wrote:
Uh the FAQ actually permits armor and invun saves

The ork faq does this specifically? Where?

Cover saves are NOT available in close combat and only apply to ranged attacks that draw a LOS through cover. This includes being in area terrain since the LOS traces through it.

The deffrolla is not a ranged attack so cover will not apply. Plain and simple. Unless you want that 4+ kff vrs that powerfist?

Hyperbole much? If you can't show it's a CC attack, then none of these CC rules apply. Play that way all you want, but you're making it up entirely.
If you want to apply armor saves, then I'm 100% just as justified applying my model's cover saving throw that it has already been granted.

page 21 BRB
"What counts as cover"
"cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots"

"when are models in cover?"
when any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover"

note that these statments refer to ranged attacks. be it psychic, shooting, throwing knives, "flying debris" etc.

Ork FAQ final question:
<referring to hitting vehicles>
"...as ramming is just a type of tank shock"

BRB page 68
"when moving a tank the player can declare that the vehicle is going to atempt to make a tank shock attack instead of moving normally. this is an exception to the rule that enemy models can not be moved through"

"..to make this kind of attack first turn the vehicle in place then declare how many inches..... once the vehicle has been "aimed" and the speed declared move the vehicle straight forward untill it comes into contact with an enemy unit, or it reaches the distance declared"

page 34 BRB
"....move the into contact with the nearest enemy model..."

page 36 BRB
assaulting through cover
(this has about 3 paragraphs, but it effectivly states that a unit charging an enemy through cover must take the apropiate terrain checks, and have thier initiative lowered to 1. nothing is presented for the charged unit being able to take cover saves.

page 39 BRB

"cove does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting. this means that models do NOT get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat, and for obvious reasons can not go to ground"

page 55 orc 'dex
"...any tank shock made by the battlewagon causes d6 str 10 hits on the victim unit.."

to summerize:
1. the deffrolla is NOT a ranged attack.
2. cover is mentioed only for ranged attacks, NOT close combat, and is specifically prohibited in close comabt.
3. since the deffrolla takes effect after a tank shock, wich occurs when a tank moves into contact with an enemy unit (very simaler to assault), its CLOSEST comparison is a co=lose combat attack.
4. since it does not state it ignores armor or prevents invun saves, those may be taken as normal, if the unit is equiped with such. (however insta death may still occur)
5. i will correct my earlier post about the faq permitting the armor/invun. it does not state this particular question, but as i mention above there is no reason to do so. the rolla does not ignore armor/invuns (unless your death or glory fails)

i will also point out, that since the deffrolla takes effect as soon as the enemy unit is in contact with the deffrolla, there is NO chance of LOS being obscured to the target model/unit. therefore cover would not apply even to begin with.take your 4+ armor or 3+ invun, or whatever, but cover saves are no dice. this just seems like simple logic as far as myself and my FLGS are concernd,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
previous was posted from my iphone so aplogies if i have bad spelling or whatnot.

darthspader wrote:
3. since the deffrolla takes effect after a tank shock, wich occurs when a tank moves into contact with an enemy unit (very simaler to assault), its CLOSEST comparison is a co=lose combat attack.
4. since it does not state it ignores armor or prevents invun saves, those may be taken as normal, if the unit is equiped with such. (however insta death may still occur)

I like how you quoted a pile of rules and then pulled your conclusion out of thin air.

We know the rolla isn't a ranged attack. Just like we know it isn't a CC attack.
We know it doesn't state it ignores armor or prevents invuln saves. Just like we know it doesn't state it ignores cover saves.
None of this stuff you are talking about applies. You're cherry picking a few rules with no basis other than your opinion that it should work like CC.

5. i will correct my earlier post about the faq permitting the armor/invun. it does not state this particular question, but as i mention above there is no reason to do so. the rolla does not ignore armor/invuns (unless your death or glory fails)

So you just... pulled that rather specific faq claim out of thin air too? Okay.
Glad we're on the same page, anyway. If you claim you get armor because it doesn't say it ignores it, then I get cover because it doesn't say it ignores it.

i will also point out, that since the deffrolla takes effect as soon as the enemy unit is in contact with the deffrolla, there is NO chance of LOS being obscured to the target model/unit. therefore cover would not apply even to begin with.take your 4+ armor or 3+ invun, or whatever, but cover saves are no dice. this just seems like simple logic as far as myself and my FLGS are concernd,

Funny, since I specifically mentioned I was talking about a kff, which completely bypasses all of these requirements and simply grants a saving throw.

see at this point im packing up and your playing solo. the game is permissive ruleset. it PERMITS cover saves vrs ranged. it PERMITS armor/invuns vrs ranged or CC. it does not say anything about getting either to be frank against the deffrolla. RAW you take the d6 str 10 and go squish. most people i know though, will allow armor at the very least, and invuns because they generally defend against anything. cover is ONLY ever permitted against ranged attacks. and if your telling me that a deffrolla is a ranged attack, then im definitly not going to continue a game with you, nor would i want to play one later.

the reason for those rle quotes was to present a logical argument that A: the deffrolla is not a ranged (its not technically CC either) but its CLOSEST to the later. with no real rules, take the closest thing and use it. and to point out that cover does not apply in CC. ergo, if we assume and treat the deffrolla like a CC attack, cover would be ignored, and since it does not, like power weapons etc wich state "no armor saves may be taken.." then your armor is good. invuns as default are good against anything unless stated specifically otherwise.

if you cant see that point then i suggest dice it off before your games, and let fate decide for you.

If you don't need to compare WS's then I'd say you can get a cover save from it.
A collorary would be if Wave Serpents would be hit with Str 10 or Str 8?
I said Str 10, but the TO at the last tournament I entered said Str 8.

Equal RAW counter for DarthSpader's claim: Wound allocation is only described for shooting and ranged attacks, and thus you only get permission to allocate wounds for those attacks. You can do a million wounds to the unit and without wound allocation, NOBODY dies at all because the wounds are not and can not be allocated.

So, RAW: The Death Roller doesn't kill anyone.

Polonius wrote:Most people's gut reaction would be no to cover saves. Unless they want to claim them, of course...

That was also the reaction to the Doom of Malantai's Spirit Leech and the Mawloc's Terror From the Deep attack- except that you can claim cover saves from them, thanks to the Tyranid FAQ. Naturally, it doesn't say what kinds of cover saves can be taken...

This all sounds like a matter of common sense if anything. We've all defined that being hit by a deff rolla is neither shooting or cc. We've defined that armour and invun saves are allowed.

But I would not allow cover saves at all for the simple matter of common sense. If I decided to roll a giant spiked wheel right over you, can you honestly say that hiding behind a wall or jumping into a dip in the ground will save you? Heck no. That wheel will crush everything in it's path and the spikes will stab you multiple times while you're lying face-first in the dirt.

General opinion: No Cover Save For You

EDIT: somehow I can't type...

The hole in the ground saved Indiana Jones.

If only that hole was there in peru.

Poor Indy...

This all sounds like a matter of common sense if anything. We've all defined that being hit by a deff rolla is neither shooting or cc. We've defined that armour and invun saves are allowed.

But I would allow cover saves at all for the simple matter of common sense. If I decided to roll a giant spiked wheel right over you, can you honestly say that hiding behind a wall or jumping into a dip in the ground will save you? Heck yes, as you are no longer in danger. That wheel will crush everything in it's path and the spikes will stab you multiple times while you're lying face-first in the dirt, so you used the cover to avoid that path.

Unless it is CC, cover saves are not denied without further rules.

General opinion: Cover Save For You

here's the question then: so would models get cover saves for "gets hot" wounds? What about wounds caused by exploding vehicles? Or even "no retreat" wounds?

Polonius wrote:here's the question then: so would models get cover saves for "gets hot" wounds? What about wounds caused by exploding vehicles? Or even "no retreat" wounds?

Get's Hot is tricky and I'm not sure.

Exploding vehicles are a definite yes for surrounding units (it says explicitly to resolve as a shooting attack). Units embarked in the vehicle are hit before being placed on the table, so they aren't in any area terrain when hit. So, they don't get a cover.

No retreat happens in CC, so I'd say standard CC wounding rules apply. So, no cover.

Polonius wrote:here's the question then: so would models get cover saves for "gets hot" wounds?

Are cover saves "normal saves"?

/shrug

I would say that units that can claim cover will get a cover save from a Over-heat. Standing in area terrain would be a good example. No-retreat wounds are taken from close combat resolution, so I'd say you could not take a cover save from them.

Cover saves are not allowed from a Plasma Gun overheating (as great at it is to think of it starting to explode and everyone hitting the deck).

Cover saves can be, explicitly, only taken against shooting attacks IIRC unless otherwise indicated.

calypso2ts wrote:Cover saves can be, explicitly, only taken against shooting attacks

The rules never actually say this, hence the argument.
The cover rules are defined in the shooting section, and the rules for gaining a cover save to take depend on shooting, but having a cover saving throw already (from a kff for example) is more of a grey area when you're given permission to take any "normal saves".

I don't see that. Stuff like your kff or a bikes dust cloud "provide a cover save" because they obscure your unit from the firer. If it was meant for all situations then it would be "the kff provides a _+ invun save" pretty simple. Area of trees - provides cover. Other unit - provides cover. Kff- provides cover. The only difference is the kff moves around with you. Otherwise it functions the exact same.

Terror from the Deep and Spirit Leech are shooting attacks?

DarthSpader wrote:I don't see that. Stuff like your kff or a bikes dust cloud "provide a cover save" because they obscure your unit from the firer. The only difference is the kff moves around with you. Otherwise it functions the exact same.

No, it doesn't obscure your unit from the point of view of the firer. It provides the unit with a cover saving throw.
That's the whole point.

I took the top paragraph on page 21 ' protect from shooting and flying debris' as indicating they can only be taken against shooting or something that creates flying debris (i.e. vehicle explosion).

calypso2ts wrote:I took the top paragraph on page 21 ' protect from shooting and flying debris' as indicating they can only be taken against shooting or something that creates flying debris (i.e. vehicle explosion).

Again, I have argued the same, but there is no rule stating it and GW has ruled otherwise more than once.

See: Terror from the Deep and Spirit Leech.

Those silly GW employees - I bet they write rules and spend the rest of their time watching people argue about them!

Getting cover from being in area terrain etc, and receiving cover from wargear means the same thing. The end result: you qualify for cover, as applicable in the cover save rules. Plain and simple.

And cover only applies to ranged attacks. If you need to define that, check websters. At the risk of repeating myself again: the deffrolla dies not inflict a ranged attack - so no cover.

Why dining feel like I'm banging my head against the wall?

W/e I'm done with this one.

And the only time removing models is defined is in ranged attacvks. So the deffrolla never damages anything.

DarthSpader wrote:W/e I'm done with this one.

Which is probably a good stance to take - simply because I think we have thoroughly established that this is one of those grey areas that there simply are no RAW. We simply must decide with our opponent when we play how we want to handle this, and I think most people can agree:

1.) Deffrolla is neither a ranged nor CC attack, nor really even an "attack" but a special Tank Shock like Ramming;
2.) There are no RAW covering cover as it pertains to Tank Shock or Ramming, and the only one covering wounds is "Death or Glory!" which the Deffrolla does have RAW for;
3.) As the deffrolla inflicts it damage as a zero-range object smashing into you with intense force, much like an enormous mace/flail/spiked club, the closest analogue which is covered under the rules explicitly is a close combat attack, which will not allow cover saves.
4.) If your opponent disagrees, you should roll for it

So far as the argument that "you could jump into a hole and thus get a cover save, that is neither a RAW nor a RAI argument: it is a common sense argument. While I enjoy common sense arguments, I think we can agree that they rarely are useful in resolving any rules arguments in 40K, and if you think otherwise, tell me why marines crouching behind a concrete wall would rather stand up and take bullets on the armor then from behind that wall. Common sense is not useful in this arena, because if we did employ it, you'd also have to explain why any terrain filled with holes big enough for troops to hide in doesn't also count as difficult terrain. So, unless you think that 4 point flow chart breaks down at some point, that's how I'd do it.

Please note that the deffrolla hits are not in fact always applied to models that are in btb with the rolla. One model in the unit must come into btb contact, the rolla then can inflict multiple wounds to the unit...even if it only ever comes into contact with ONE model of the unit.

Is the rolla really hitting every model upon which it inflicts a wound or is it spewing out splinters and shrapnel as if smashes through trees and walls? For point of reference: In the days of sail most wounds were inflicted by the splinters created by the cannonballs striking the ship, very few wounds were inflicted by the cannonballs directly) So yes it is quite possible that cover might be useful in avoidng a rolla and its effects.

In actuality, the hits are of course being distributed to the unit as a method of keeping the game moving quickly. The RAI of how and why the wounds are inflicted by the rolla are hidden deep in the dark recesses of the GW development staff, not somewhere that any sane individual really wants to delve.



Sliggoth

I agree with Ouze. I think that while the RAW reads that the wounding process allows for cover saves, and only the Close combat rules explicitly forbid that, I think it's more likely that GW wrote those rules thinking they'd be the only two ways modesl would take wounds.

It's more likely that GW wrote the wound rules sort of generally, but still with the idea that it was part of the shooting rules. They then recycled those rules with a few patches for the close combat, and moved on.

This means that while it's tempting (and I've tossed around the idea) to simply treat the entire wounding section of the shooting rules as the "general purpose" wounding mechanism (including cover saves), I think it's giving GW too much credit. Cover saves against wounds from an extremely short ranged, indiscriminate peice of wargear that also by rules and fluff can rip through terrain seems a bit much.

Ouze wrote: you'd also have to explain why any terrain filled with holes big enough for troops to hide in doesn't also count as difficult terrain.

To be fair, this is exactly how we have played it--terrain checks with the area terrain.

If the deff rolla was so able to mangle units whether they are in terrain or not, wouldn't it have an AP value?

Only shooting attacks have an AP. If there was an AP here, this whole conversation would be redundent.

I think Ouze has the logic set here and I would happily follow it as such.

What I don't get is how most of these people try to twist rules or make up their own interpretation of how it is written..."Dive into cover???" ROFL where in the rules does it say...."Ignore this rulebook, make your own up."

Covers saves vs tank shock??? Only skimmers get their save.

This is a no brainer rule everybody...You tank shock a squad, they make their leadership test, then choose to death or glory...He fails his D/G or passes, you roll your D6 str 10 wounds. Opponent rolls his armor save. Remove models...Done

AP = shooting. Tank shocking isn't shooting. You always get your armor save.

This is done exactly like any other tank shock vs. a squad. There is no cover save period.

So many people will do ANYTHING to screw the deffrolla over. It's not even something to fear honestly. It's a 20pt upgrade that rarely is able to be used.

What I don't get is how most of these people try to twist rules or make up their own interpretation of how it is written..."Deny any type of save without rules saying to???" ROFL where in the rules does it say...."Ignore this rulebook, make your own up."

Covers saves vs tank shock??? For vehicles, only skimmers get their save.
And Bjorn.
And other vehicles with saves listed.

This is a no brainer rule everybody...You tank shock a squad, they make their leadership test, then choose to death or glory...He fails his D/G or passes, you roll your D6 str 10 wounds. Opponent rolls his saves. Remove models...Done

AP = shooting. Tank shocking isn't listed as any type of attack. You always get saves unless denied.

This is done nothing like any other tank shock vs. a squad--because Tank Shocks normally do not cause wounds.

There is no denial of any save, period.

So many people will do ANYTHING with the deffrolla to screw people over. It's not even something to fear honestly. It's a 20pt upgrade that rarely is able to be used.

Yes it is done the EXACT same way as any other tank shock +1 extra step. Once leadership passed and D/G played out or not. You roll your wounds....Take armor saves

You are tank shocking your opponent. Read rules for tank shock. Then the deffrolla dishes out wounds...That's it...Pretty plain and simple.

Flyinmiata1 wrote:Yes it is done the EXACT same way as any other tank shock +1 extra step. Once leadership passed and D/G played out or not. You roll your wounds....Take armor saves

You are tank shocking your opponent. Read rules for tank shock. Then the deffrolla dishes out wounds...That's it...Pretty plain and simple.

I think you missed something lol. If it was that simple this argument would be done. It gets a lot more confusing, read back a couple pages.

Flyinmiata1 wrote:Yes it is done the EXACT same way as any other tank shock +1 extra step. Once leadership passed and D/G played out or not. You roll your wounds....Take armor saves

Sorry, you're getting this where? Where are you getting these tank shock save/wound rules from that doesn't allow you to take a specific type of saving throw? And isn't close combat, since the rolla definitely isn't a close combat.

Gorkamorka.....

Where in any of my 2 posts did I say you don't get saves vs. a deffrolla??? You get your armor save/invul (whichever is better obviously), but you do not get a cover save...


85% of you look WAY into the rules only to try and exploit something with this thread. 40k is not a complicated game, but trying to bend rules here and there turns it into a hornet's nest of BS.

What do you do when you "tank shock" a unit?

1. Leadership test
2. D/G or not to
3. Move squad over

The deffrolla follows the exact same rules only that it does dmg as well. Yes you get your armor saves, but sorry you don't get cover saves...Being shocked doesn't count as "shooting."

This is not rocket science people...

Tank shock (sans rolla) does not cause wounds, so there is nothing to save, regardless.

In case you are wondering why that step does not come up.

What about all of this new dark eldar stuff, Reavers, Chain snares on a Raider, Blade Vanes, and such?

It says specifically that "cover saves may be taken as normal" even though it is done in the movement phase. "As normal" seems to imply that you would get a cover save from the deffrolla, or any other sort of attack like it, unless otherwise stated.

Gorkamorka wrote:Where are you getting these tank shock save/wound rules from that doesn't allow you to take a specific type of saving throw?

Flyinmiata1 wrote:Gorkamorka.....
Where in any of my 2 posts did I say you don't get saves vs. a deffrolla???

Several times. Right here for example:

Flyinmiata1 wrote:There is no cover save period.

Or here:

Flyinmiata1 wrote:you do not get a cover save...

Or here:

Flyinmiata1 wrote:sorry you don't get cover saves

I'll ask you again, since you ignored me. Where in the rulebook are you finding these rules for tank shock wounding and saving throws that allow you to ignore a type of saving throw my models have?
You say that the wounds work and that armor works... where are you getting these rules? The shooting section, where all saving throws work fine and can be applied to everything that doesn't specifically bypass them?
Hint: You can't use the CC rules, since they don't apply, and you can't use the rules governing gaining a cover saving throw since the kff bypasses them.

Flyinmiata1 wrote:What I don't get is how most of these people try to twist rules or make up their own interpretation of how it is written..."Dive into cover???" ROFL where in the rules does it say...."Ignore this rulebook, make your own up."

You repeatedly mock people who make up rules, yet it appears your entire stance is based upon a made up assumption you can't point to in the book.

It's fine if you want to houserule the rolla to work the way you claim, but don't pretend for a second it's written in the rulebook.

Flyinmiata1 wrote:you do not get a cover save...

The special attacks that Reavers and Raiders get by passing over an enemy unit (the raider's being against all units passed over, tank shocked or not), clearly state that you get a cover save "as normal".

This ought to put this discussion to rest, unless the Deffrolla clearly states that you do not get a cover save.

AP does not = shooting, as the power that Idrel(sp?) for the Eldar has an AP of 3. It's a CC attack.

In the movie Fast and the Furious (I think the 3rd one) there is a rolling tanker truck barreling down at the hero. He drives towards it, timing his approach to coincide with the various hops the ROLLING vehicle makes on it's way to killing him.

axeman1n wrote:AP does not = shooting, as the power that Idrel(sp?) for the Eldar has an AP of 3. It's a CC attack.

In the movie Fast and the Furious (I think the 3rd one) there is a rolling tanker truck barreling down at the hero. He drives towards it, timing his approach to coincide with the various hops the ROLLING vehicle makes on it's way to killing him.

Yes, the eye of wrath. Prince Yriel I think..

(Off topic)One thing that bugs me is that.. The eye of wrath is written in the same way as Eldritch Storm but, nobody ever argues that The Eye scatters. Also the mawloc's blast that it makes when it emerges, written in the same fashion.

Storm is not written in the same way, as it has a normal weapon profile stating it is a blast weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Storm is not written in the same way, as it has a normal weapon profile stating it is a blast weapon.

Yes, but the instructions for using it state "place the template, units under it take a hit" (same wording that the eye, and the mawloc's blast use), and the eldar FAQ states that eldritch storm is a psychic shooting attack with exceptions as stated in it's description. That's why it seems to me that it shouldn't scatter.

I know that everyone still plays it as it does scatter, and I don't use it anyway, it just seems that they probably intended for it to not scatter, since they worded it that way.

Anyway, anyone gonna try and refute if you get cover saves vs the Deffrolla anymore? Gwar? :p

When the y created the codex it didnt scatter, as that was back in 4th ed.

Since then the core rules have changed.