What kind of a saving throw do the flickerfields give? Is it an unnamed bonus or counts as cover? Also, can it be used against a death or glory attack during a tank shock if the vehicle has that prow thing?

Read the wargear section it clearly states that flickerfield gives a 5+ invulnerable save p63 of the DE codex

Don't play dark eldar so I don't have the codex.

it does to all of the above. Believe me an opponent of mine has a raider he has named photon torpedo because he will use it for a first turn s10 ram attack on a tank.

my poor predator has suffered this before


Automatically Appended Next Post:
it does to all of the above. Believe me an opponent of mine has a raider he has named photon torpedo because he will use it for a first turn s10 ram attack on a tank.

my poor predator has suffered this before

captain collius wrote:it does to all of the above. Believe me an opponent of mine has a raider he has named photon torpedo because he will use it for a first turn s10 ram attack on a tank.

my poor predator has suffered this before

I love this combo

The Raider rams an enemy vehicle, destroys that vehicle, but makes its FF save.

So, the enemy vehicle isn't actually destroyed, as it was just a holographic image of the Raider that hit the vehicle, but the enemy's entire army are absolutely convinced the vehicle was wrecked, including the crew and passengers. The fluff imagery of that is hilarious.

Grants in Invul save, which can also then be used against close combat. Which by extension would mean it would indeed take that save against ramming attacks, yeah.

kungfujew wrote:What kind of a saving throw do the flickerfields give? Is it an unnamed bonus or counts as cover? Also, can it be used against a death or glory attack during a tank shock if the vehicle has that prow thing?

It is an invulnerable save. It is not cover so things that ignore cover have no effect and the save can be taken in close combat. Also it can be used against death or glory or ramming attempts.

It cannot be taken against things like dangerous terrain. Basically if you suffer a glancing or penetrating hit you get the save. Now without a GK book I'm not sure how the shield breaker is worded so I'm not sure if that will bypass or destroy the FF.

Shield breaker breaks a piece of wargear since the flicker field is war gear it could be broken. However to break it you would have to score a hit where the vehicle fails its invul save which could be a pen or glance doesn't matter. Also the vindicator is a sniper rifle so use those rules to score a pen or glance.

It'd have no effect on vehicles, since Shield-Breaker specifies "When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses an invulnerable saves granted by items of wargear immediately, and for the rest of the battle."

Vehicles do not take wounds.

Invul saves only work against wounds, per the brb.

Really want to go there?

I would if I wanted to suffer an apoplexy. I should know better than to assume things have been cleared up since they were last brought up in YMDC.

Discuss it with <insert player here> beforehand or whatever, i'm out.

Avatar 720 wrote:I would if I wanted to suffer an apoplexy. I should know better than to assume things have been cleared up since they were last brought up in YMDC.

Discuss it with <insert player here> beforehand or whatever, i'm out.

I wasn't trying to be antagonistic.

Flickerfields offer an invulnerable save. Invulnerable saves only work against wounds.

We can either assume Flickerfields do nothing (that'd be wrong) or we can assume that wounds == pen/glancing hits.

That's all I was pointing out.

Def: pg 63 , DE Codex:
" Flicker Feild: The vehicle has a highly advanced optical force shield that makes it appear to flicker in and out of reality. A Vehicle with a Flickerfield has a 5+ invulneranle save"
Avatar 720-"""When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses an invulnerable saves granted by items of wargear immediately, and for the rest of the battle."

Vehicles do not take wounds. "

It is not Wargear, its a Vehicle Upgrade.
Wargear would be, a Shadowfield, or such.

Rigeld2-
"We can either assume Flickerfields do nothing (that'd be wrong) or we can assume that wounds == pen/glancing hits. "

For the sake of everyone understanding the point, its the latter.

rigeld2 wrote:Invul saves only work against wounds, per the brb.

Really want to go there?

Flickerfields are specific to dark eldar and work as follows as per the DE FAQ:

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming
immobilised from a Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: No. The save from a flickerfield can only be taken
against glancing and penetrating hits.

Hey Kungfu.... was this topic started because of little ole me?? He he... guess you didn't like my flickerfields! LOL

Sister of Battle now have 6++ saves on vehicles too. Bjorn also has an invual save too I believe.

And using the DE FAQ as a precedent they would work the same way too. A shield breaker would not work since you need to score a wound, which a vehicle cannot take. To further solidify this the FAQ tells us how to take the flickerfield save.

As for the ramming tactic I find it rather foolish personally. I mean here let me throw my 70 point model at your predator. Drat rolled a 2. Well you instantly penetrate me due to speed so let see a 1/3 chance of saving the raider...nope. Well roll damage at +1. Yeah sounds like a very very expensive krak missile to me.

As for the ramming tactic I find it rather foolish personally

It's a bit chancy, certainly. But say you have an 80 point raider (flickerfield, shock prow, aethersails).

You're going to ram anything at S10 so long as you're able to travel far enough to do so S8 for the 24" flat out plus S[2d6/3] for the aethersails +d3 for the prow.

Now granted the raider takes an auto pen and therefore is wrecked or explodes 4/9 of the time (anything from a 3 up on the damage table but you get a save 1/3 of the time on those results). But it's undestroyed (though perhaps stunned or weapon destroyed) 5/9 of the time

Against AV12 the raider will penetrate 2/3 of the time and wreck or explode the enemy 1/3 of those, so 2/9.

Against AV13 penetrate 1/2 the time and destroy 1/3 so 1/6.

Against AV14 1/3, 1/3 so 1/9.

But in general against the higher AV's it's quite likely that the target will be something like a vindicator where you want the weapon destroyed or a landraider where you want it immobilised. Then the 'good' results are increased somewhat to better than 1 in 4 (including glances) and better than 1 in 6).

The raider being a somewhat annoying shape can obstruct the enemy if it hit obliquely (even if it's wrecked).

It's not a tactic to be undertaken willy nilly but a single raider so equipped against a landraider (say) is risking 80 points with a 4/9 chance of destruction) against destroying say 260 points with a 1 in 6 chance to immobilise or destroy and so forcing the nasty assault unit inside to hoof it across the board.

Very crudely that's 36 points average loss to an average gain of 43 (not quite the ideal way to look at it but it makes the point that it's not a bad bet, just a risky one).

Granted you could fire the lance against said raider (or whatever) but there you've got 2/3 hit, 1/3 pen, 1/2 pens give a desired result so about 1 in 9, 50% worse than the ram and of course the ramming attack is unaffected by cover or smoke.

I wouldn't do it all the time but spoending 10 points to give a single raider the aethersails and shock prow that would make the tactic viable if needed seems fair enough really. Obviously you'd disembark the troops first, or have deployed it empty.

Let me emphasise I'm not saying this is something that should certainly be done, but it's not a ridiculous notion either.

Blood and Slaughter wrote: Granted you could fire the lance against said raider (or whatever) but there you've got 2/3 hit, 1/3 pen, 1/2 pens give a desired result so about 1 in 9, 50% worse than the ram and of course the ramming attack is unaffected by cover or smoke.

As for the underlined, where does it say this?

DeathReaper wrote:

Blood and Slaughter wrote: Granted you could fire the lance against said raider (or whatever) but there you've got 2/3 hit, 1/3 pen, 1/2 pens give a desired result so about 1 in 9, 50% worse than the ram and of course the ramming attack is unaffected by cover or smoke.

As for the underlined, where does it say this?

Are you suggesting that smoke grants a cover save VS ramming?
BRB p 62 smoke launchers grant a cover save during the shooting phase only.

Ramming takes place in the movement phase, so no you don't get a cover save vs ramming.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

worldwarme wrote:Def: pg 63 , DE Codex:
" Flicker Feild: The vehicle has a highly advanced optical force shield that makes it appear to flicker in and out of reality. A Vehicle with a Flickerfield has a 5+ invulneranle save"
Avatar 720-"""When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses an invulnerable saves granted by items of wargear immediately, and for the rest of the battle."

Vehicles do not take wounds. "

It is not Wargear, its a Vehicle Upgrade.
Wargear would be, a Shadowfield, or such.

Rigeld2-
"We can either assume Flickerfields do nothing (that'd be wrong) or we can assume that wounds == pen/glancing hits. "

For the sake of everyone understanding the point, its the latter.

As for RAW, Avatar 720 is perfectly correct. Flickerfield is not wargear and vehicles do not take wounds. Flickefield grants a 5+ against glances and pens. So following RAW Shield-Breaker has no effect on vehicles.

Any other reading of this is RAI, HWYPI or "I think it should work a certain way because the effects are similiar." I'm all for playing it however you want in a friendly game. Ask your opponent before the game.

Akroma06 wrote: Yeah sounds like a very very expensive krak missile to me.

Not that expensive, really, and quite funny! I would laugh out loud if a Raider moved flat out across the board and managed to explode my Stormraven

Nemesor Dave wrote:Are you suggesting that smoke grants a cover save VS ramming?
BRB p 62 smoke launchers grant a cover save during the shooting phase only.

Ramming takes place in the movement phase, so no you don't get a cover save vs ramming.

I was just wondering where the rule was that says you can not take a cover save against a ram attack.

And I was just pointing out that an Ork vehicle with a KFF in range could indeed take a cover save against a Ram attack.

um, i actually think no, you dont get cover vrs a ram. and i believe although i could be wrong that the FAQ covers this.

The FAQ does not state that you cannot take cover saves against a ram

The BRB has no rules stating you cannot take cover saves against a ram attack

So smoke and KFF, plus any other non-LOS generated cover (as there is no firing model you cannot get LOS cover) would work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The FAQ does not state that you cannot take cover saves against a ram

The BRB has no rules stating you cannot take cover saves against a ram attack

So smoke and KFF, plus any other non-LOS generated cover (as there is no firing model you cannot get LOS cover) would work.

It's not as simple as that. You need to check the BRB p 62 rule about smoke. Smoke grants a cover save in the shooting phase only. Other non-LOS cover may vary.

True enough, just generally stating about cover saves not being excluded, so they arent

I've had a look at the vehicles and cover section on p62.

it says 50% or more of the vehicle's targetted facing must be obscured to claim to be in cover. Now when a vehicle rams, I'd say that if at the point of impact the preceding is true (ramming through a window, say) then a cover save would be fair enough. Otherwise not.

Smoke specifically only protects in the shooting phase as has been said (though I suspect that's actually an oversight and they didn't think about ramming when they put that in), same for 'flat out' cover saves,they protect the vehicle only 'when fired at'. Which incidentally means the 'raven and other flat outing skimmers are quite good targets for a suicide ram, being AV12 and also denied it's 'skimmer save' vs ram.

lance wrecks a flat out raven about 1/18 times, a suicide ramming raider wrecks it about 1/3 of the time.

cover saves are taken specifically against shooting attacks and shooting attacks only. A ram is not a shooting attack. I suggest you read page 69 of the brb. It tells you exactly how to handle ramming. then check the section on what cover saves are. They are used against shooting attacks. There needs to be a target and a firing model. Trying to add cover saves to this is just adding rules in where they dont exist. The only way terrain comes into ramming is through area terrain for the DT test. That is your cover save.

Remember you dont need to target a model to ram, you dont need LOS, You are just physically placing one model against another.

"cover saves are taken specifically against shooting attacks and shooting attacks only"

No rules basis for that statement can be found.

On another read, I tend to agree. It says in the ramming section that you roll for penetration and apply the results immediately.' There's no mention of a cover save option. Claiming such under any circumstances (except the specifically allowed 3+ dodge for skimmers rammed by non-skimmers) would rely on assuming that a ram attack is akin to a shooting one.

This also raises a question about Void Mines which are used in the movement phase and so presumably are equally exempt from smoke, etc,

"cover saves are taken specifically against shooting attacks and shooting attacks only"

No rules basis for that statement can be found.

Warhammer 40k is a permissive rule set. It tells you what you CAN do. In the cover section it tells me i can take cover verses shooting attacks. So now you show me where it says I can take them against anything else.

dionysus wrote:

"cover saves are taken specifically against shooting attacks and shooting attacks only"

No rules basis for that statement can be found.

Warhammer 40k is a permissive rule set. It tells you what you CAN do. In the cover section it tells me i can take cover verses shooting attacks. So now you show me where it says I can take them against anything else.

I would agree with this. Skimmers have a special rule that allows them to dodge on a 3+. It says nothing about granting a cover save against ramming for moving flat out for instance.

I also agree with the above quote but it doesn't quite address the situation properly. There may be no basis to say cover saves only work against shooting but...

More accurately: I believe there is no rule granting a cover save VS. ramming.

dionysus wrote:

"cover saves are taken specifically against shooting attacks and shooting attacks only"

No rules basis for that statement can be found.

Warhammer 40k is a permissive rule set. It tells you what you CAN do. In the cover section it tells me i can take cover verses shooting attacks. So now you show me where it says I can take them against anything else.

Again, please find an actual rule that says exactly what you are saying. The rules on page 21 do not say this, so please dont point to them.

You have the right idea (that 40k is permissive) however the rules on page 21 are a LOT more broad than you are stating they are.

The Close Combat section on page 39 specifically excludes cover saves, which I think is what might be taken as allowing cover saves versus ramming (ie there is no such specific exclusion in the ramming section).

Against that is the very specific instruction on p.69 to 'roll for armour penetration against the enemy vehicle and any result is immediately applied' with no mention of any saves allowed. But would than then disallow flickerfield or other invun saves too? I think not. Which means cover saves could apply too...

Blood and Slaughter wrote:The Close Combat section on page 39 specifically excludes cover saves, which I think is what might be taken as allowing cover saves versus ramming (ie there is no such specific exclusion in the ramming section).

Against that is the very specific instruction on p.69 to 'roll for armour penetration against the enemy vehicle and any result is immediately applied' with no mention of any saves allowed. But would than then disallow flickerfield or other invun saves too? I think not. Which means cover saves could apply too...

Flickerfield's case is answered in a Faq so it doesn't mean "cover saves would apply to"

I'd forgotten that, thankyou. I'm tending to think then that cover probably is disallowed for ramming (were it allowed, would it have to be allowed both ways? -- the ramming vehicle being equally obscured from the rammed... which is just silly.)

Again, quote me the rule that allows it. Convince me. Find me an instance in the brb that might allow you to take a cover save on a ram. Show us your not just saying, well it doesn't say i can't so i can.

I mean we could expand this out, by your theory i can now take cover against gets hot. (What cover save does the chimera give my plasma vets? Its like a bunker, do i get a 3 up cover, can i go to ground?)

Address the targeting and line of sight issue. Cover requires both a target being in either area terrain or obscured, and a firing unit. (every reference to cover on page 21 and 22 specifically mention shots and/or shooting)

Pg 69: "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of. Units other than vehicles in the way of the ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows.

Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against...........etc etc"

There are many other paragraphs to quote and i hate typing :-)

(Coincidentally i would say there is an argument against invulnerable saves being taken in the next paragraph, though i wouldn't support it.)

If we move to page 68 it states that tank shock also doesn't target (in many more words)

A ram is simply a move action with no designated target. If your vehicle moves at full speed and just happens to collide with mine before it can finish its move, ramming happens.


Edit:

The Close Combat section on page 39 specifically excludes cover saves, which I think is what might be taken as allowing cover saves versus ramming (ie there is no such specific exclusion in the ramming section).

This does not give permission to take cover saves for other situations. The rules have to tell you you can do it and the only mentions of cover saves all deal with shooting.

dionysus wrote:Again, quote me the rule that allows it. Convince me. Find me an instance in the brb that might allow you to take a cover save on a ram. Show us your not just saying, well it doesn't say i can't so i can.

I mean we could expand this out, by your theory i can now take cover against gets hot. (gonna be so embarrassed when someone points out that you can.)

If you are in area terrain you can take cover save.

Gets Hot! says 'normal saves apply'...

Dionysus - I dont need to convince you. My point is that your statements had no basis in rules - there is no requirement on page 21 that you can only take cover saves against shooting attacks. None at all.

So, now you have general permission to take cover saves in general, if one applies to your unit, find where cover saves are disallowed against ramming.

Yes, this does mean that technically you can take cover saves against gets hot, but not while in a chimera. In area terrain you could do so, or under a KFF bubble.

It may make no sense, but neither does a flickerfield saving the raider but still causing damage to the rammed vehicle. Good job 40k doesnt deal with realism!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dionysus - I dont need to convince you. My point is that your statements had no basis in rules - there is no requirement on page 21 that you can only take cover saves against shooting attacks. None at all.

So, now you have general permission to take cover saves in general, if one applies to your unit, find where cover saves are disallowed against ramming.

Yes, this does mean that technically you can take cover saves against gets hot, but not while in a chimera. In area terrain you could do so, or under a KFF bubble.

It may make no sense, but neither does a flickerfield saving the raider but still causing damage to the rammed vehicle. Good job 40k doesnt deal with realism!

You don't get the "permissive ruleset", unless it says you can do something like in the "gets hot" rules you can't of it

JGE - i suggest you reread my post. Also, maybe look at my posting history - I know *FULL WELL* what permissive ruleset means

If you have general permission to do something, you can do it unless some more specific restricts you

I have permission, in general, to take any cover save that applies to me. Now find the rule that says I am unable to do so against ramming.

I'll wait while you find this rule. Dont worry, we can wait.

Would you then allow both vehicles a cover save given that they were each obscured from the other?

If both vehicle shave something that grants them a cover save (i.e. both in range of a friendly KFF) then yes, they both get a cover save. If only one had a cover save (again, KFF as an example) then only that vehicle would get a cover save, since the cover generating ability doesn't make the enemy obscurred.

I was specifically thinking of a situation where something like a wall obscured half of each vehicle from the other but the ramming vehicle still contected the rammed.

I have permission, in general, to take any cover save that applies to me

Do you not in fact have permission in the shooting phase to do that. Not in every phase. Given that the rules for cover are found in the chapter entitled The Shooting Phase? Why assume that it applies outside this phase?

Not so cut and dry. Being in area terrain places you in cover. It does not grant you a blanket cover save. Being in cover and having a cover save are 2 totally separate things. Read page 21 and 22 of the brb.

Page 21 "A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots..."
Page 21 "Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots."
Page 21 "When any part of the target model's body is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."
Page 21 "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models, it recieves a... cover save..."

There is not a single reference in the brb to suggest that cover grants you a cover save for anything other than shooting attacks, all I'm asking for folks is one example.

Also, if we want to get UBER technical, there is only one reference i can find to a "normal save" Pg 24: first line under models with more than one save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nos. Answer the question I've asked multiple times. Who is the firer and who is the target when ramming. to take a cover save with a vehicle my Los from my firing model to the target unit would need to be blocked at least partially. Since in ramming there is no firing model and no target unit, explain to me how this works. You are getting to the point of just saying I'm right, your wrong, but you have not placed a shred of evidence on the table.

Also, pick apart how what im saying is in any way incorrect?

In the movement phase (dangerous terrain) and assault phase it specifically says that cover saves are not allowed for dangerous terrain or assaults. The vehicles section gives specific permission for flat-out skimmers to receive a cover save 'when fired at'. Bikes get the turbo-boosters USR wich gives them a 3+ cover save 'in the enemy shooting phase'). Skimmers get a specific rule allowing them to dodge on a 3+ amny ramming attack by a non-skimmer. No other mention of cover saves being allowed outside the shooting phase is mentioned.

So I think it really depends on whether one thinks the rules for cover given in the Shooting Phase are meant to apply at all times unless contradicted. And also if that is so, whether in that case they would apply to non-shooting attacks like ramming.

It all comes down to what the rules have said you can do, not what they say you cant. If you play the "well they didn't say i couldn't do it, but i cant find anywhere where they say i can, so ill just do it anyways" You are working off of RAI like Nos is. Not RAW which is what this forum is about.


First line, page 21 under what counts as cover "Cover is basically anything that is hiding a TARGET or protecting it from incoming SHOTS. Seems peaty cut and dry. Every description of a cover save requires a target unit and a firer.

Page 62: At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being TARGETED.......

In ramming there is no target.

I agree. What I'm saying is that how you view the way the rules are set out can lead to a different interpretations.

NoS, I think, regards the cover rules as applying universally unless contradicted, not just in the Shooting Phase unless otherwise allowed. But if one takes the chapter titles to mean the rules given therein only apply to that section unless specifically allowed elsewhere, one will have a different intyerpretation. I can't see either of these as being 'more right'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:JGE - i suggest you reread my post. Also, maybe look at my posting history - I know *FULL WELL* what permissive ruleset means

If you have general permission to do something, you can do it unless some more specific restricts you

I have permission, in general, to take any cover save that applies to me. Now find the rule that says I am unable to do so against ramming.

I'll wait while you find this rule. Dont worry, we can wait.

Nos that's quite a long read...just saying.

Now as for the whole cover thing. You are allowed to take a cover save if you are either 50% obscured (vehicle) in cover or popped smoke, or under the effect of some other ability such as a KFF. (If I missed one sorry you get the point.) Now in order for you to not get the cover save you have to be told you cannot take it, such as being hit by a template weapon or being rammed after popping smoke, or being struck by an attack in close combat or getting hit by either a tau airbursting fragmentation projector or the airburst from a TFC, etc. If you are hidden so that when you get rammed just the very edge of your vehicle is visible then most likely you will be in cover and will get a save.

Cover saves dependent on LoS would not apply (i.e. being partially behind a building. Cover saves that are not dependent on LoS (i.e KFF,, there might be other wargear, I don't know) would allow a cover save. Smoke Launchers only benefit in the Shooting phase, and Flat-Out specifies Shooting attacks, (which is why they are not included).

Cover saves dependent on LoS would not apply (i.e. being partially behind a building

Why not?

Now as for the whole cover thing. You are allowed to take a cover save if you are either 50% obscured (vehicle) in cover or popped smoke, or under the effect of some other ability such as a KFF. (If I missed one sorry you get the point.) Now in order for you to not get the cover save you have to be told you cannot take it, such as being hit by a template weapon or being rammed after popping smoke, or being struck by an attack in close combat or getting hit by either a tau airbursting fragmentation projector or the airburst from a TFC, etc. If you are hidden so that when you get rammed just the very edge of your vehicle is visible then most likely you will be in cover and will get a save.

You can never be 50% obscured during a ram as you aren't ever targeted.

Now the KFF is a totally different issue that would make my head explode to think about (something about ork tech)i

I edited my last post with this and it got buried while i was typing so:

First line, page 21 under what counts as cover "Cover is basically anything that is hiding a TARGET or protecting it from incoming SHOTS. Seems pretty cut and dry. Every description of a cover save requires a target unit and a firer.

Page 62: At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being TARGETED.......

Yes, that seems fair enough.

Dionysus - apparently you cant count either. That question you had asked "multiple times"? You had asked once before, the multiple time was in that post.

When in Area Terrain you are both In Cover AND have a cover save equal to the terrain you are in. So that's another area you are wrong in.

I am not working off RAI (as I pointed out - it is slightly odd that you can take a cover save from being rammed, or even a FF save where one avoids the damage by using a hologram of themselves - it doesnt make sense). I am working 100% off RAW, unlike you. Permission to take a saving throw is given on page 20, and is not reliant on page 21. So, if I am in area terrain I have a 3+ / 4+ etc cover save, and permission to take the best save I have available (in fact required to, page 24, models with more than one save) - so now, please, for the first time this thread, please provide relevant rules that actually support your argument.

Blood - the reason you cannot get LOS based cover saves is that there is no firing model, so no way to determine if you are in ocver from the firing model. When you are in Area Terrain you ALWAYS have a cover save, simply from being there. It doesnt require a firing model.

When you are in Area Terrain you ALWAYS have a cover save, simply from being there

Vehicles don't (though I take your point as regards this discussion).

Thats the problem with 40k - get carried away with one generalisation and forget the obvious exceptions!

Can I just check where we are 'to date'?

Smoke will not provide cover against ramming as it specifically applies 'in the next enemy shooting phase' and ramming is movement.

Flat out saves will not apply for skimmers as they are for 'when fired at' and ramming is not firing.

Being in area terrain doesn't work for vehicles in any circumstances so clearly doesn't apply to ramming.

Obscured LoS doesn't work as there is no firer or target.

So only wargear-granted saves like Flickerfields or KFF will apply. Yes?

Yep. It pretty much leaves JUST KFF and any inherent save the vehicle has, e.g. FF and Bjorns save, all SoB vehicles, etc.

noc, not a single quote, and everything you lead me to read is a stretch. You still haven't responded to the most important point i brought up multiple times (as you are correct, i only phrased it as a question once, all the other times you just blatently ignored it) I don't know if you are just relying on your stunning good looks or your status here on dakka, but the fact that all you've said in every responce is essentualy, your wrong because i said so, its on a page go read it, is just insulting and a terrible example to set.

When in Area Terrain you are both In Cover AND have a cover save equal to the terrain you are in. So that's another area you are wrong in.

So your saying vehicles in area terrain have a cover save automaticaly.

Permission to take a saving throw is given on page 20

sure for regular saves and invulns, not a mention on when to roll cover saves.

Blood - the reason you cannot get LOS based cover saves is that there is no firing model, so no way to determine if you are in ocver from the firing model. When you are in Area Terrain you ALWAYS have a cover save, simply from being there. It doesnt require a firing model.

Wow, I've been saying this for what 4 posts now and all you've done is argue it.

All I've been trying to say is cover saves for ramming aren't possible. (barring special circumstances or giant pieces of terrain) Area terrain means crap for vehicles, and there is no target so you cant obscure.

I have no idea how anyone could read the first paragraph on page 21 and have any doubt that cover saves are for shooting attacks only. It states things like "not affected by the AP of the ATTACKING WEAPON" and that "units in cover will normaly get a cover save regardless of what's FIRING at them." If you continue reading you get things like "A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots..." and "Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots." and "When any part of the target model's body is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover." and "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models, it recieves a... cover save..."

But your saying that because there is no set sentence that says: Cover saves are only to be taken against shooting. You can take them against anything.

There is nothing in the book stating you can use a cover save like a "normal save" there is nothing in the book stating you can use cover saves for anything other than the example given... shooting. point me to the exact line of text that states you can use cover saves in all the same instances you could use a regular save.

dionysus wrote:noc, not a single quote, and everything you lead me to read is a stretch. You still haven't responded to the most important point i brought up multiple times (as you are correct, i only phrased it as a question once, all the other times you just blatently ignored it) I don't know if you are just relying on your stunning good looks or your status here on dakka, but the fact that all you've said in every responce is essentualy, your wrong because i said so, its on a page go read it, is just insulting and a terrible example to set.

Oh where to start....

No, I gave page quotes. I also asked you to actually provide real rules - not your made up statements - and at that point you started getting quite defensive of your position. Classic really. So....

dionysus wrote:

When in Area Terrain you are both In Cover AND have a cover save equal to the terrain you are in. So that's another area you are wrong in.

So your saying vehicles in area terrain have a cover save automaticaly.

No, I did not say that. Apparently you cannot help but jump to incorrect conclusions all the time. You should get that looked at.

Your statement was that being in Area Terrain (general) did not give you a cover save, it just meant you were In cover. That statement (in general) is incorrect. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news and all that....

dionysus wrote:

Permission to take a saving throw is given on page 20

sure for regular saves and invulns, not a mention on when to roll cover saves.

Gosh, you really dont know how to read actual rules, do you?

Page 20, first paragraph left hand column. Final words of the paragraph. Gosh. That means that Taking Saving Throws is all about the three types of saving throws - Armour, Invulnerable and cover! Who would have thought!

dionysus wrote:Wow, I've been saying this for what 4 posts now and all you've done is argue it.

WRONG. You have argued, hilariously incorrectly, that you can *only* get cover saves in the Shooting Phase and against Shooting Attacks. Go right back to what you first made up - that you can only take cover saves against shooting attacks. You were then asked to prove it - and here we are, quite a few pages later, and you still cannot find any proof.

Put up or shut up time

dionysus wrote:All I've been trying to say is cover saves for ramming aren't possible. (barring special circumstances or giant pieces of terrain) Area terrain means crap for vehicles, and there is no target so you cant obscure.

Wrong, KFF makes it possible. SoS makes it possible. Stormcaller makes it possible. All because you have general permission on page 20 to take saves, and a requirement on page 24 to actually take them if they are available. I also wouldnt call those "special" circumstances either.

dionysus wrote:SNIP....yet more irrelevancies...SNIP
But your saying that because there is no set sentence that says: Cover saves are only to be taken against shooting. You can take them against anything.

Yes, in fact page 24 states you are required to take them, as you have been given permission to take them on page 20. Again, you dont even know the rules you are quoting.

dionysus wrote:There is nothing in the book stating you can use a cover save like a "normal save" there is nothing in the book stating you can use cover saves for anything other than the example given... shooting. point me to the exact line of text that states you can use cover saves in all the same instances you could use a regular save.

So when the book defines the three types of regular saves, you dont consider them all to be Normal? Really? Please show me the line that defines "normal saves" and "special saves", and that cover saves fall into the latter. Oh right, you cant because it is yet another thing you have made up out of whole cloth. Shock.

Ive played Orks for over a decade and I would NEVER assume that I could use a KFF as currently written as a cover save during rams or any type of close combat attacks.

Now they could modify the rules in the next edition to give all models within 6" a cover AND Inv save, that would be great.

Don't cover saves only work with wounds?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong, KFF makes it possible. SoS makes it possible. Stormcaller makes it possible. All because you have general permission on page 20 to take saves, and a requirement on page 24 to actually take them if they are available. I also wouldnt call those "special" circumstances either.

Actually, nos, SoS would not work, as it is used in your opponents Shooting phase, and lasts until the end of the phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jgehunter wrote:Don't cover saves only work with wounds?

Re-read page 62 of the BRB.

Happyjew wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jgehunter wrote:Don't cover saves only work with wounds?

Re-read page 62 of the BRB.

Yep srry, was thinking of invulnerable

Its a 5+ vehicle invul save I dont understand whats so hard to understand.....yes you can use it in a death or glory.

Smitty0305 wrote:Its a 5+ vehicle invul save I dont understand whats so hard to understand.....yes you can use it in a death or glory.

We were debating cover saves, not invulnerable saves.

still cant quote me a single rule. page 20 does not say when you can take cover saves, it says when you can take armour saves and invulns.

go back and read my posts, not just the bits you want to read.

im only getting defensive because once again, you make blanket statments, and tell me its in the book, i provide quotes that you just ignore due to some magic rule on page 20 that doesn't exsist.

I'm done with this, you can keep miss informing dakka.

Page 62 Left Column, 6th Graph "If the target is obscured and sufferes a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

Allowance to take cover saves whilst obscured.

DeathReaper wrote:Page 62 Left Column, 6th Graph "If the target is obscured and sufferes a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

Allowance to take cover saves whilst obscured.

Completely true.

However it's a bit pointless to discuss this as AFAIK you can't be obscured against a ram (bar weird abilities) And I think we all agree that you can take saves for KFF et al

jgehunter wrote:
However it's a bit pointless to discuss this as AFAIK you can't be obscured against a ram (bar weird abilities) And I think we all agree that you can take saves for KFF et al

Therein lies the problem. It is being claimed, incorrectly, by Dinoysus that those "wierd ablilites" such as KFF can't be taken vs a Ram attack.

Really though it's a separate discussion in relation to the OP.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Put up or shut up time

Is there a need to get all worked up over toy soldier rules? Serious? If you think he doesn't get it, then drop it.

So wounds = glance/pen for everything but shield breaker?
Or are people going to argue that Hive Guard don't ignore vehicle cover saves?

rigeld2 wrote:So wounds = glance/pen for everything but shield breaker?
Or are people going to argue that Hive Guard don't ignore vehicle cover saves?

I don't agree that wounds = glance/pen. It is an extrapolation that people make from other rules which is, at its core, RAI.

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So wounds = glance/pen for everything but shield breaker?
Or are people going to argue that Hive Guard don't ignore vehicle cover saves?

I don't agree that wounds = glance/pen. It is an extrapolation that people make from other rules which is, at its core, RAI.

I, however, don't think it's relevant, the only place were I would see it problematic would be with the flicker field invuln but how it works is explained in the faq

dionysus wrote:still cant quote me a single rule. page 20 does not say when you can take cover saves, it says when you can take armour saves and invulns.

Wrong, stil. Taking Saves defines that you roll a dice to take any of the saves. I gave page and para - more than you've managed.

dionysus wrote:
im only getting defensive because once again, you make blanket statments, and tell me its in the book, i provide quotes that you just ignore due to some magic rule on page 20 that doesn't exsist.

Wrong again - I gave the rules, repeatedly. You dont like them because they are proving you wrong. Which is why you are getting defensive. Again.

dionysus wrote:I'm done with this, you can keep miss informing dakka.

Nope, I am still 100% correct, and you have yet to provide an actual rule to back up your claim that you can only take cover saves against shooting attacks. I asked for it after your first post, and you have never provided a single, actual rule to back up your position. Please, stay away if you are unable to provide actual rules, it is better than misinforming others with your unsupported, made up rules.

Therein lies the problem. It is being claimed, incorrectly, by Dinoysus that those "wierd ablilites" such as KFF can't be taken vs a Ram attack.

Really though it's a separate discussion in relation to the OP.

I never EVER claimed that KFF couldn't be taken. I mentioned it once in a post and said it was a whole other issue. In fact at one time i even stated that under special circumstances cover saves can be taken for ram, I was referring to things like this.

So thank you for that.

And Nos I think you are so stuck on being right you wont even take a look in the brb. Quote me verbatim the line on page 20, or anywhere in the codex that states when cover saves are allowed to be taken. I truly believe your lack of posting actual quotes is due to your lack of being able to find any evidence to back up your statements.

Its very easy to say I'm wrong without ever providing proof. I have quoted whole Paragraphs for you and you ignore them. I have loaded this thread with statement after statement pulled directly from the rulebook, yet you maintain I haven't.

Nos: I also asked you to actually provide real rules - not your made up statements

how is quoting the rulebook verbatim a made up statement? Every statement ive made ive backed up with a direct quote from the brb, not just a page number, like your so fond of. You are getting to the point of trolling.

Page 20, first paragraph left hand column. Final words of the paragraph. Gosh. That means that Taking Saving Throws is all about the three types of saving throws - Armour, Invulnerable and cover! Who would have thought!

First off the word cover is never stated. Secondly those 3 paragraphs tell you HOW to make saves, not WHEN to make saves. Next section is about how and when to take armour saves. the following section is about how and when to take invuln saves. So you tell me where your magical proof on page 20 is that cover is for anything but shooting. Quote me a line.

So when the book defines the three types of regular saves, you dont consider them all to be Normal?

Page 24: Sometimes a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save.......... As if this wasn't enough the model might be in cover as well.
Then in the following example cover is again used with shooting.

My favorite Nos quote was your addendum while quoting me:

SNIP....yet more irrelevancies...SNIP
But your saying that because there is no set sentence that says: Cover saves are only to be taken against shooting. You can take them against anything.

The "yet more irrelevancies" bit was the actual rules pulled from the rulebook and here they are. page 21-22 states things like "not affected by the AP of the ATTACKING WEAPON" and that "units in cover will normaly get a cover save regardless of what's FIRING at them." If you continue reading you get things like "A position in cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots..." and "Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots." and "When any part of the target model's body is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover." and "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models, it recieves a... cover save..."

Where in this book is the magical line that allows for you to take cover against anything other than what they explicitly state cover is used for. Post me a quote.

I think this is way to funny that people are arguing this, i dont think you should get cover..

here is something to back up that you do take cover saves... look at the mawlok, his terror from the deep attack, that is done in the movment phase, and that is basicly a ram attack
he says he is going to that location, stuff gets out of the way... you get coversaves from that....

dionysus wrote:*snip* there is nothing in the book stating you can use cover saves for anything other than the example given... shooting *snip*

dionysus wrote:*snip* I never EVER claimed that KFF couldn't be taken. *snip*

Dionysus, you know that KFF is a cover save.

Dionysus - so when I post the exact link tot eh rules that isnt enough for you? I have to do ALL your work for you?

Your made up statement is that cover saves can ONLY be taken against Shooting Attacks. You have yet to manage a single, solitary rule from ANYWHERE where that is proven correct. Not a one.

Me the troll? Nope, not even close.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dionysus - so when I post the exact link tot eh rules that isnt enough for you? I have to do ALL your work for you?

Your made up statement is that cover saves can ONLY be taken against Shooting Attacks. You have yet to manage a single, solitary rule from ANYWHERE where that is proven correct. Not a one.

Me the troll? Nope, not even close.

How long more do you want to continue this bickering?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Me the troll? Nope, not even close.

You very much are doing so. Please outline where exactly Cover Saves provide you the ability to use them against anything other than ranged attacks? Cover Saves specifically are allowed to be taken against attacks that are "fired". You don't fire a chainsword so CC is out.

It also only provides a save against attacks which otherwise pierce the armor the unit inherently already has. CC attacks do not pierce armor, they either ignore it or they do not. Ranged attacks pierce armor.

KFF does not provide any protection other than a cover save. Where is it allowed to do more than that?

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Me the troll? Nope, not even close.

You very much are doing so. Please outline where exactly Cover Saves provide you the ability to use them against anything other than ranged attacks? Cover Saves specifically are allowed to be taken against attacks that are "fired". You don't fire a chainsword so CC is out.

It also only provides a save against attacks which otherwise pierce the armor the unit inherently already has. CC attacks do not pierce armor, they either ignore it or they do not. Ranged attacks pierce armor.

KFF does not provide any protection other than a cover save. Where is it allowed to do more than that?

Actually, you do not get cover saves from cc attacks, because the assault rules SPECIFY:

BRB, page 39 wrote:This means models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat, and for obvious reasons cannot go to ground.

NecronLord3 wrote: Please outline where exactly Cover Saves provide you the ability to use them against anything other than ranged attacks? Cover Saves specifically are allowed to be taken against attacks that are "fired". You don't fire a chainsword so CC is out.

It also only provides a save against attacks which otherwise pierce the armor the unit inherently already has. CC attacks do not pierce armor, they either ignore it or they do not. Ranged attacks pierce armor.

KFF does not provide any protection other than a cover save. Where is it allowed to do more than that?

I posted where cover saves for vehicles were allowed.

Page 62 Left Column, 6th Graph "If the target is obscured and sufferes a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

Allowance to take cover saves whilst obscured.

No mention of "Only from ranged weapons" So you can use it against any attack that does not specifically disallow a cover save.

Hmm.. This reference is taken from the section "shooting at vehicles".

grendel083 wrote:Hmm.. This reference is taken from the section "shooting at vehicles".

And the Instant Death rules are in the shooting section, what is your point?

DeathReaper wrote:

grendel083 wrote:Hmm.. This reference is taken from the section "shooting at vehicles".

And the Instant Death rules are in the shooting section, what is your point?

Thought it was being taken out of context, it isn't. I do apologise.

It is a solid point, obscured allows for a cover save (KFF granting the obscured) for any glance/pen.

Close combat being an obvious form of attack disallowed, but I can't find anything that says Ramming disallows cover.

I thought it had been established earlier that ramming has no target. So as there's no explicit target for a ram, the vehicle can't benefit from the cover save for being obscured.

Not having a target does not matter.

If the target is obscured and sufferes a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it."

would suggest a target is needed.

Now I would agree that the target of a ram is the vehicle struck (using common sense) but I'm not sure that strict reading of the rules actually assigns a target to a ram.

If the target is obscured and suffers a glance/Pen, you get a cover save.

the context tells us that "Target" means vehicle.

Necron - yawn, take your trolling elsewhere please. You dont get cover saves against close combat attacks because the rules specify you dont. Which had already been mentioned in this thread, I guess they were just more inconvenient words for you to ignore?

AS DR says above - you have permission to take cover saves, and a requirement to take the best save you have (p24) - so if you HAVE a cover save you MJST take it if it is better than your armour / invulnerable save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Necron - yawn, take your trolling elsewhere please. You dont get cover saves against close combat attacks because the rules specify you dont. Which had already been mentioned in this thread, I guess they were just more inconvenient words for you to ignore?

AS DR says above - you have permission to take cover saves, and a requirement to take the best save you have (p24) - so if you HAVE a cover save you MJST take it if it is better than your armour / invulnerable save.

Cover saves in both the pg 21 section and vehicle section page 62 repeatedly refer to being " fired" at. In every situation cover saves refer back to ranged attacks the only exception is the one bullet point on page 62, however this does not mean that every other rule and reference to shooting is ignored on page 21 and 62. You are bending rules to your advantage in doing so, and it is incorrect to do so in the absence of a specific rule giving permission to take cover saves against ramming attacks. Please take your incorrect information elsewhere.

Cover saves need to be denied. Rams do not. See: mawlok, Doom of malantai, et al.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:
Do you not in fact have permission in the shooting phase to do that. Not in every phase. Given that the rules for cover are found in the chapter entitled The Shooting Phase? Why assume that it applies outside this phase?

I was just reading through this thread and I though of an answer for this question, if a vehicle explodes beside my unit in the assault phase and it's explosion can wound my unit and does so. I may make a cover save against it if my unit is in cover.

kirsanth wrote:Cover saves need to be denied. Rams do not. See: mawlok, Doom of malantai, et al.

FAQ grants specific permission:

WARHAMMER 40,000: 4
Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds inflicted
by the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability? (p58)
A: Yes.

Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from
the Deep attack? (p51)
A: Yes.

Assumed permission to use a Cover Save against all types of attacks is therefore denied unless specifically allowed to do so.

If they switch the turn order and describe saves in the assault phase, are people going to claim cover does not work against shooting?

That is what is happening here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NecronLord3 wrote:Assumed permission to use a Cover Save against all types of attacks is therefore denied unless specifically allowed to do so.

That was an FAQ, not errata.
It is clarifying intent.

All available saves can(and in fact must) be taken unless denied. (Which makes them unavailable.)

A model with a cover save must use it if it is a better save. It is not even an option.

I think the issue isn't can a cover save be used, RAW give no reason why not, sorry if this steps on any toes.

BUT I am not seeing a reason why a cover save would be granted as when you are in b2b contact you can more or less see +50% of the model.
If we are going on the area terrain reason(personally I think area terrain can eat me, never liked it) then shouldn't both of the tanks get to make a cover save?

@liturgies of blood: we were discussing the KFF that the orks have. it grants obscured status to vehicles even if the vehcle is 100% visible to the enemy.

That is why they get a cover save, because they have wargear that does not care if you can see more than 50% of the vehicle or not.

Ok, I wasn't sure if people were just talking about that as it seemed to break down into "Are you the troll or am I?" for a while there.

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Necron - yawn, take your trolling elsewhere please. You dont get cover saves against close combat attacks because the rules specify you dont. Which had already been mentioned in this thread, I guess they were just more inconvenient words for you to ignore?

AS DR says above - you have permission to take cover saves, and a requirement to take the best save you have (p24) - so if you HAVE a cover save you MJST take it if it is better than your armour / invulnerable save.

Cover saves in both the pg 21 section and vehicle section page 62 repeatedly refer to being " fired" at. In every situation cover saves refer back to ranged attacks the only exception is the one bullet point on page 62, however this does not mean that every other rule and reference to shooting is ignored on page 21 and 62. You are bending rules to your advantage in doing so, and it is incorrect to do so in the absence of a specific rule giving permission to take cover saves against ramming attacks. Please take your incorrect information elsewhere.

Under a KFF i HAVE a cover save, permanently. From page 24 I HAVE to use it.

Sorry but youare, yet again, entirely missing the point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Under a KFF i HAVE a cover save, permanently. From page 24 I HAVE to use it.

Sorry but youare, yet again, entirely missing the point.

You are again making up rules that do not exist.

It doesn't change that cover saves are not permitted against ramming attacks.

Do you honestly believe that if GW does another 5th edition FAQ they would answer yes, the cover saves may be taken against ramming attacks?

NecronLord3 wrote:cover saves are not permitted against ramming attacks.

This is false.
Nothing in ramming attacks mention cover saves, which are allowed unless denied - like all saves.

kirsanth wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:cover saves are not permitted against ramming attacks.

This is false.
Nothing in ramming attacks mention cover saves, which are allowed unless denied - like all saves.

Cover saves are permitted against attacks that are fired. Is the ram fired?

The problem with your argument Necron is vehicles have general permission to take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. They are only specifically prohibited from taking them against CC attacks (AFAIK).

I do not think there are any references to be found that state 'you cannot take a cover save from a ram'

You cannot extrapolate the negative (that cover saves are prohibited) from an FAQ that says 'yes you can against TFTD' and "Yes you can against Spirit Leech'

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover saves are permitted against attacks

Fixed.

All attacks are described as "Fired" in the shooting section.
Then the rest of the rules require those rules be used.

Where else do you see rules for resolving saves, for example?

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover saves are permitted against attacks that are fired. Is the ram fired?

I didn't see - did you cite that restriction somewhere?
Or are you going to also argue that KFF doesn't protect against Imotekh's lightning storm?

You're allowed to take cover/armor/invul saves against wounds/glance|pen.
CC attacks specifically disallow cover saves.

Is the ram a CC attack? Does it have a rule saying no cover saves? Is the vehicle obscured?

If you answer no, no, yes to the above, you get a cover save. And the rules support that.

kirsanth wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover saves are permitted against attacks

Fixed.

All attacks are described as "Fired" in the shooting section.
Then the rest of the rules require those rules be used.

Where else do you see rules for resolving saves, for example?

So you ignore the rules on page 39 for taking saves during the assault?

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Under a KFF i HAVE a cover save, permanently. From page 24 I HAVE to use it.

Sorry but youare, yet again, entirely missing the point.

You are again making up rules that do not exist.

It doesn't change that cover saves are not permitted against ramming attacks.

Do you honestly believe that if GW does another 5th edition FAQ they would answer yes, the cover saves may be taken against ramming attacks?

So the rules on page 24 dont exist? What about KFF, which gives you obscured (and thus a 4+ cover save) at all times? The mind boggles with just how much you make up and troll threads.

You have simply made up another set of NecronLord rules that have no basis in actual rules, further diluting any remaining credibility you have in any thread you participate in. Which rules are you ignoring that you find inconvenient now?

I have a 4+ cover save. I am required to use it, and have permission to do so. You have yet to find any single rule that matches the stuff you have made up, and so can be safely ignored.

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting

kirsanth wrote:No, I just do not apply that rule outside of close combat - since it has no bearing outside of close combat.

Just as Cover Saves have no bearing outside of Shooting.

NecronLord3 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:No, I just do not apply that rule outside of close combat - since it has no bearing outside of close combat.

Just as Cover Saves have to bearing outside of Shooting.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover saves are permitted against attacks that are fired. Is the ram fired?

I didn't see - did you cite that restriction somewhere?
Or are you going to also argue that KFF doesn't protect against Imotekh's lightning storm?

You're allowed to take cover/armor/invul saves against wounds/glance|pen.
CC attacks specifically disallow cover saves.

Is the ram a CC attack? Does it have a rule saying no cover saves? Is the vehicle obscured?

If you answer no, no, yes to the above, you get a cover save. And the rules support that.

There is no definite answer as to whether Imotekh's Lighting Strikes allow a cover save. The INAT covers it and that is good enough for me and exactly how I expect GW to rule on it if they ever address it.

NecronLord3 wrote:There is no definite answer as to whether Imotekh's Lighting Strikes allow a cover save. The INAT covers it and that is good enough for me and exactly how I expect GW to rule on it if they ever address it.

So you're just going to ignore the implications of my question, and the rest of my post?

There is nothing that restricts cover saves to shooting only. Not a single rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:There is no definite answer as to whether Imotekh's Lighting Strikes allow a cover save. The INAT covers it and that is good enough for me and exactly how I expect GW to rule on it if they ever address it.

So you're just going to ignore the implications of my question, and the rest of my post?

There is nothing that restricts cover saves to shooting only. Not a single rule.

The rest of your question is irrelevant. As the Cover Save rule (in the shooting section of the BRB) is only relevant to shooting attacks and other attacks that function like ranged combat, explosions pscychic attacks etc. Cover Saves are specifically mentioned to be used when fired upon, and reiterated to only be used against shooting attacks in the Assault section of the rule book.

KFF does not give a Cover Save in every situation only those which a cover save would be permitted. Ramming is not one of those situations.

NecronLord3 wrote:As the Cover Save rule (in the shooting section of the BRB) is only relevant to shooting attacks and other attacks that function like ranged combat, explosions pscychic attacks etc. Cover Saves are specifically mentioned to be used when fired upon, and reiterated to only be used against shooting attacks in the Assault section of the rule book.

You haven't cited a rule that supports that.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:As the Cover Save rule (in the shooting section of the BRB) is only relevant to shooting attacks and other attacks that function like ranged combat, explosions pscychic attacks etc. Cover Saves are specifically mentioned to be used when fired upon, and reiterated to only be used against shooting attacks in the Assault section of the rule book.

You haven't cited a rule that supports that.

I have:

A position in cover shield troops troops against flying Debris and enemy shots.

units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them.

Page 21

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting

Page 39

Just because something is not a shooting attack does not make it a close combat attack.

You are conflating them.

kirsanth wrote:Just because something is not a shooting attack does not make it a close combat attack.

You are conflating them.

Never said it was. But it isn't a ranged attack or the equivalent of flying debris either. Which Cover Saves are only permitted against.

NecronLord3 wrote:Never said it was. But it isn't a ranged attack or the equivalent of flying debris either. Which Cover Saves are only permitted against.

So you say, but the rules do not. Ever.

Again, which is the Spirit Leech?
Since it HAS to be a shooting attack to allow cover, you are saying the DoM can never use its ACTUAL shooting attack?


Editing to add:
You inference may be a legitimate attempt from them to imply what you are saying.
There is simply not a rule that agrees with you.
Maybe context, but you misread if you think so.

NecronLord3 wrote:Never said it was. But it isn't a ranged attack or the equivalent of flying debris either. Which Cover Saves are only permitted against.

Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the results to the model’s Sv characteristic.

So can armor saves only be taken against shooting attacks? The line from the CC rules is:

Otherwise, the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting.

That doesn't override the "suffered from incoming fire" so now we can't use armor or invulnerable saves outside shooting either! Oh darnit!

Or - wait for it.

The "shooting" part is fluff, and should be disregarded.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Never said it was. But it isn't a ranged attack or the equivalent of flying debris either. Which Cover Saves are only permitted against.

Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the results to the model’s Sv characteristic.

So can armor saves only be taken against shooting attacks? The line from the CC rules is:

Otherwise, the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting.

That doesn't override the "suffered from incoming fire" so now we can't use armor or invulnerable saves outside shooting either! Oh darnit!

Or - wait for it.

The "shooting" part is fluff, and should be disregarded.

Is this your go to argument in every thread?

Covers saves in assault are the same as those described for shooting. You replacing the effects of shooting with the effects of CC and take saves as appropriate.(apparently GW feels that players have a level of education above 5th grade, probably an unfair assumption) Per the rule on page 39.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Never said it was. But it isn't a ranged attack or the equivalent of flying debris either. Which Cover Saves are only permitted against.

So you say, but the rules do not. Ever.

Again, which is the Spirit Leech?
Since it HAS to be a shooting attack to allow cover, you are saying the DoM can never use its ACTUAL shooting attack?


Editing to add:
You inference may be a legitimate attempt from them to imply what you are saying.
There is simply not a rule that agrees with you.
Maybe context, but you misread if you think so.

Cover Saves are not only allowed from Shooting attacks but also the effects of ranged abilities and other effects that function as shooting. Is the explosion of a rhino not permitted if the tank fired it's storm bolter? Reinforced by numerous FAQ references to when a cover save is allowed, none of which support using it against a Ram.

NecronLord3 wrote:Reinforced by numerous FAQ references to when a cover save is allowed, none of which support using it against a Ram.

Every single one of them support it. More than your inferring restrictions where none exist based upon in-game descriptions - unless you actually wait for your models to 'fire'.

NecronLord3 wrote:Is this your go to argument in every thread?

Covers saves in assault are the same as those described for shooting. You replacing the effects of shooting with the effects of CC and take saves as appropriate.(apparently GW feels that players have a level of education above 5th grade, probably an unfair assumption) Per the rule on page 39.

That's pretty insulting.

"Covers saves in assault are the same as those described for shooting."
Yes, they are.

"You replacing the effects of shooting with the effects of CC and take saves as appropriate."
Citation needed. Because now you're changing the words in the rules.

The rule on page 39 (that I quoted btw) says that the procedure is the same as that used for shooting.
The procedure for shooting, by your reading, requires the damage to come from a shooting attack or flying debris.

So the procedure for CC attacks is to use saves that can only be used against shooting attacks or flying debris.

This does not make sense.

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover Saves are not only allowed from Shooting attacks but also the effects of ranged abilities and other effects that function as shooting.

This would all be a lot simpler if you could just find that line in the text. I know you keep reading it, but it isn't there.

kirsanth wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Cover Saves are not only allowed from Shooting attacks but also the effects of ranged abilities and other effects that function as shooting.

This would all be a lot simpler if you could just find that line in the text. I know you keep reading it, but it isn't there.

The second time:

I have:

A position in cover shield troops troops against flying Debris and enemy shots.

units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them.

Page 21

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting

Page 39

NecronLord3 wrote:two rules quotes

I don't think that means what you think it means.

In fact, I know it doesn't. Unless you're removing all armor/invul saves from CC as well.

NecronLord3 wrote: Never said it was. But it isn't a ranged attack or the equivalent of flying debris either. Which Cover Saves are only permitted against.

The permissive ruleset allows coversaves when you are in cover bar the stated exception of cc, templates etc. I don't see much of a reason beyond the kff why you would get a coversave on the vehicle but I can't see any reason why it would be disallowed for a ram. Shooting attacks and anything that does not negate normal saves can have cover saves taken against them. Where does it say explicitly (cos implicit statements don't really work for RAW too well) that you cannot make a cover save in this case?

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:two rules quotes

I don't think that means what you think it means.

In fact, I know it doesn't. Unless you're removing all armor/invul saves from CC as well.

Yep, those "rules" quotes are nothing of the sort. Apparently NL thinks you only get armour saves against shooting....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:two rules quotes

I don't think that means what you think it means.

In fact, I know it doesn't. Unless you're removing all armor/invul saves from CC as well.

Yep, those "rules" quotes are nothing of the sort. Apparently NL thinks you only get armour saves against shooting....

So what that is all you have? Sorry I posted the rules. We play using the rule book here.

You posted text, then infered rules. The actual rules you posted do not agree with you.

You need to assume words are there, that is just about the opposite of RAW.

RAW would be showing a rule that says you can take a cover save against a ram. But since those rules don't exist, I won't be waiting for anyone to post them.

@Necron:
The Instant Death rules are also in the shooting section, can you only ID someone from shooting?

NO RAW is that you can take a cover save when obscured on glancing/penetrationg rolls.
KFF gives you a cover save at all times.
Why does that cover save dissappear when a model gets rammed?
I have seen nothing to back that up.

liturgies of blood wrote:NO RAW is that you can take a cover save when obscured on glancing/penetrationg rolls.
KFF gives you a cover save at all times.
Why does that cover save dissappear when a model gets rammed?
I have seen nothing to back that up.

Try reading the rulebook.

DeathReaper wrote:@Necron:
The Instant Death rules are also in the shooting section, can you only ID someone from shooting?

The section on how to treat wounds? There is nothing in that section beholden to shooting attacks. Unlike cover saves that refer to shooting in multiple sections.

You would also be ignoring page 39 which is in the assault section and refers back to shooting.

ID is on Page 26.

The Shooting Phase rules are on pages 15-26...

DeathReaper wrote:ID is on Page 26.

The Shooting Phase rules are on pages 15-26...

Ignoring page 39?

The funny part is the acknowledgment that cover saves are allowed by the rules for non-shooting attacks. . .except this one.

Like what ranged psychic attacks or effects?

Did you honestly think I meant psychic shhoting attacks whwn I wrote non-shooting attacks?

No. I did not. Although it does help clear some things up for me anyway.

Hey just on ramming... what part of this disallows cover saves?

pg 69 "Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted (so the rammer always uses its front armour)....
Both players roll for armour penetration against their
enemy vehicle and any result is immediately applied. If
the vehicle that is rammed is not removed, the rammer
halts. However , if the rammed vehicle is removed
because it suffers a ‘destroyed – explodes!’ damage
result, the rammer continues its move, until it reaches
its maximum move distance or another enemy (which it
will tank shock or ram again!)."

Permissive ruleset. You have to have a rule that says you can take a cover save from a ram.

NecronLord3 wrote:Permissive ruleset. You have to have a rule that says you can take a cover save from a ram.

Not when you have blanket permission - and in fact insistence - that you use the best save. KFF give a cover save - the only save;therefor the best.

Now; why can it not be used - I have permission.

Editing to add:
Permission = page 34 Codex: Orks

You are allowed take cover saves in general... we all agree.
Ramming is more specific but it doesn't say you can't.
Permissive doesn't mean you need to have to state every time a wound is allocated that you can take a save.
It means that once you have a rule that says you can take a save when a wound is accrued to a unit, you need to have specific wording in the more specific rules to say you cannot make a save.

Since it says that an obscured vehicle may make a cover save and the rules include that there are situations where units in the open can be given a cover save, KFF being one of them, which we are all agreed on.

You need to find a rule that says the cover saves are not allowed in this case. Bjorn gets his invulnerable save why does a kan not get a KFF save?

NecronLord3 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:ID is on Page 26.

The Shooting Phase rules are on pages 15-26...

Ignoring page 39?

The ID rules are not on P.39

DeathReaper wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:ID is on Page 26.

The Shooting Phase rules are on pages 15-26...

Ignoring page 39?

The ID rules are not on P.39

The reference to wounds are. How to handle ID is in the section for wounds. Keep putting up,irrelevant arguments that make you look uncreditable. Troll on.

Please try to make the tone a bit more cordial, folks. If we see further hostility in here disciplinary action will be taken.

Thanks.

liturgies of blood wrote:You are allowed take cover saves in general... we all agree.
Ramming is more specific but it doesn't say you can't.
Permissive doesn't mean you need to have to state every time a wound is allocated that you can take a save.
It means that once you have a rule that says you can take a save when a wound is accrued to a unit, you need to have specific wording in the more specific rules to say you cannot make a save.

Since it says that an obscured vehicle may make a cover save and the rules include that there are situations where units in the open can be given a cover save, KFF being one of them, which we are all agreed on.

You need to find a rule that says the cover saves are not allowed in this case. Bjorn gets his invulnerable save why does a kan not get a KFF save?

Inv. saves aren't cover saves. KFF does not give you blanket permission to use in all cases. No where in no way, does it give permission to use against a ram.

NecronLord3 wrote:KFF does not give you blanket permission to use in all cases.

Prove it. The only expections are because they deny cover saves. Ram has RULES AS WRITTEN no such thing.
Perhaps implication, if you squint and cross your eyes - but if you do that the rest of the saves are just as worthless.


Permissive ruleset.
I have permission.
Prove otherwise.

Ramming doesn't say you can take an invulnerable save, the way you use permissive ruleset does that not mean you can't take one?

I don't see either type of save mentioned yet we don't argue over a ++ save.

liturgies of blood wrote:Ramming doesn't say you can take an invulnerable save, the way you use permissive ruleset does that not mean you can't take one?

I don't see either type of save mentioned yet we don't argue over a ++ save.

Careful - he might.

NecronLord3 - the way you're attempting to read the rules doesn't make sense, and isn't supported by, well, anything.

Spirit Leech is neither a shooting attack nor a psychic attack - but it allows saves.
Terror from the Deep is neither a shooting attack nor a psychic attack - but it also allows saves.

A ram is neither a shooting attack nor a psychic attack - what are you going to cite to show that saves cannot be taken?

NecronLord3 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The ID rules are not on P.39

The reference to wounds are. How to handle ID is in the section for wounds. Keep putting up,irrelevant arguments that make you look uncreditable. Troll on.

But not explicit permission to use the ID wound rules in CC, as the rule for ID is in the shooting section.

How can you not agree to this and agree to the cover save thing?

If logic were all that mattered we would have stopped this pages ago.

Editing to add:
bonus points for that edit if you caught it, it was ridiculous.

DeathReaper wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The ID rules are not on P.39

The reference to wounds are. How to handle ID is in the section for wounds. Keep putting up,irrelevant arguments that make you look uncreditable. Troll on.

But not explicit permission to use the ID wound rules in CC, as the rule for ID is in the shooting section.

How can you not agree to this and agree to the cover save thing?

It is given in the rules for ID. Ignore it if you wish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Ramming doesn't say you can take an invulnerable save, the way you use permissive ruleset does that not mean you can't take one?

I don't see either type of save mentioned yet we don't argue over a ++ save.

Careful - he might.

NecronLord3 - the way you're attempting to read the rules doesn't make sense, and isn't supported by, well, anything.

Spirit Leech is neither a shooting attack nor a psychic attack - but it allows saves.
Terror from the Deep is neither a shooting attack nor a psychic attack - but it also allows saves.

A ram is neither a shooting attack nor a psychic attack - what are you going to cite to show that saves cannot be taken?

FAQ allows it. Show me the FAQ that allows cover saves against rams.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:Ramming doesn't say you can take an invulnerable save, the way you use permissive ruleset does that not mean you can't take one?

I don't see either type of save mentioned yet we don't argue over a ++ save.

The rules for invulnerable saves allow it, cover saves must be from shooting attacks per the brb. If you would like to debate it, invulnerable saves also give no permission to be used against attacks that do not wound. Want to debate it lmk?

NecronLord3 wrote:cover saves must be from shooting attacks per the brb.

Except that is not actual rules.

Yes you can take cover saves from shooting.

We look at the FaQ and it clarifies we can take cover saves from non shooting attacks as well, like spirit leach and Terror from the deep, so we know we are allowed to take Cover saves for things that are not shooting.

Now, since we have permission to take a cover save on a non shooting attack we can use this cover save in all situations, unless specifically denied. For example CC attacks ignore cover saves.

Please provide actual rules, page number, or anything in the FAQ or rules that deny this cover save against a ram attack.

We can wait while you check, please just a page number is all we are asking for.

If you can not find one then you must concede your point.

DeathReaper wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:cover saves must be from shooting attacks per the brb.

Except that is not actual rules.

Yes you can take cover saves from shooting.

We look at the FaQ and it clarifies we can take cover saves from non shooting attacks as well, like spirit leach and Terror from the deep, so we know we are allowed to take Cover saves for things that are not shooting.

Now, since we have permission to take a cover save on a non shooting attack we can use this cover save in all situations, unless specifically denied. For example CC attacks ignore cover saves.

Please provide actual rules, page number, or anything in the FAQ or rules that deny this cover save against a ram attack.

We can wait while you check, please just a page number is all we are asking for.

If you can not find one then you must concede your point.

FAQs do not give you blanket permission to do anything. It gives you specific permission and specific permission only. NOTHING gives you specific permission to take cover saves against RAM attacks. Nothing more nothing less.

You are making gak up, again.

Spirit Leech and Terror from the deep both are represented by a ranged attack for the former and an explosion for the latter. Two instances specifically permitted in the BRB, and supported by GW FAQs.

NecronLord3 wrote:FAQs do not give you blanket permission to do anything. It gives you specific permission and specific permission only. NOTHING gives you specific permission to take cover saves against RAM attacks. Nothing more nothing less.

Nothing gives you specific permission to take armor saves against CC attacks.
Not with the interpretation you're using anyway.

On top of the fact that you don't need specific permission to use saves versus any attacks - you're given that on page 20something (BRB not at hand, it's been quoted in this thread a few times). Now that the general permission exists, you must find something denying the permission. CC has that for cover saves. Power weapons deny armor saves in CC. Cite the rule that shows a ram denies any saves whatsoever.

You are making gak up, again.

Pot, kettle.

Spirit Leech and Terror from the deep both are represented by a ranged attack for the former and an explosion for the latter. Two instances specifically permitted in the BRB, and supported by GW FAQs.

Spirit Leech being a ranged attack will be surprising to the Doom of Malantai - it's not a Monstrous Creature so can only make one shooting attack per turn - meaning he will never be able to use Cataclysm. And, of course, the problem of the DoM using a ranged attack during the opponents turn.

NecronLord3 wrote:FAQs do not give you blanket permission to do anything. It gives you specific permission and specific permission only. NOTHING gives you specific permission to take cover saves against RAM attacks. Nothing more nothing less.

You are making gak up, again.

Spirit Leech and Terror from the deep both are represented by a ranged attack for the former and an explosion for the latter. Two instances specifically permitted in the BRB, and supported by GW FAQs.

Would you like to provide actual rules for this, Page numbers etc.

The FaQ clarified that since Terror from the Deep is not a shooting attack, you may take your save against it.

They rules the same way with the Doom of Malantai.

This context tells us that you can in fact take cover saves from non shooting attacks, since there are two examples right there.

On second thought forget it. If you can not agree that spirit leach and Terror from the Deep are not shooting attacks, then your argument falls apart.

rigeld2 wrote:
Nothing gives you specific permission to take armor saves against CC attacks.
Not with the interpretation you're using anyway.

Specific permission is given page 39. Read it.

rigeld2 wrote: On top of the fact that you don't need specific permission to use saves versus any attacks - you're given that on page 20something (BRB not at hand, it's been quoted in this thread a few times). Now that the general permission exists, you must find something denying the permission. CC has that for cover saves. Power weapons deny armor saves in CC. Cite the rule that shows a ram denies any saves whatsoever.

Permission denied as ramming is not a shooting attack. Cover saves may be taken against shooting attacks per pages 21 and 39 of the BRB.

Pot, kettle.

Wrong you are, yes.

Spirit Leech being a ranged attack will be surprising to the Doom of Malantai - it's not a Monstrous Creature so can only make one shooting attack per turn - meaning he will never be able to use Cataclysm. And, of course, the problem of the DoM using a ranged attack during the opponents turn.

Specific special ability of the character as permitted by the Codex, and FAQ uses a ranged combat profile, thus it functions as a ranged combat attack and therefore is permissible that cover saves are taken against it. Codex RAW this should not be allowed, FAQ allows it therefore you may do so. There are tons of examples of abilities that occur without an action by the character being required. Does it count as the DoM's ranged attack um no as it is an area of effect ability that requires no action, therefore it can still use it's other ranged attack during the shooting phase. The profile of the attack uses range therefore a cover save is permitted against it per the BRB and supported by the FAQ(a valid question as RAW does not allow it). FAQ grants specific permission for an abiity which contradicts the rules. No such permission is granted, ever to RAM attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:FAQs do not give you blanket permission to do anything. It gives you specific permission and specific permission only. NOTHING gives you specific permission to take cover saves against RAM attacks. Nothing more nothing less.

You are making gak up, again.

Spirit Leech and Terror from the deep both are represented by a ranged attack for the former and an explosion for the latter. Two instances specifically permitted in the BRB, and supported by GW FAQs.

Would you like to provide actual rules for this, Page numbers etc.

The FaQ clarified that since Terror from the Deep is not a shooting attack, you may take your save against it.

They rules the same way with the Doom of Malantai.

This context tells us that you can in fact take cover saves from non shooting attacks, since there are two examples right there.

On second thought forget it. If you can not agree that spirit leach and Terror from the Deep are not shooting attacks, then your argument falls apart.

Where is the clarification that neither is not a shooting attack?

Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from
the Deep attack? (p51)
A: Yes.

Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds inflicted
by the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability? (p58)
A: Yes.

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Nothing gives you specific permission to take armor saves against CC attacks.
Not with the interpretation you're using anyway.

Specific permission is given page 39. Read it.

I have. Pave 39 says to make armor saves like you do against shooting attacks.
Armor saves, by your interpretation, work against shooting (firing unit, et. al.). That means that there's no allowance in those rules for CC attacks. If you're saying that you should replace shooting with CC you're changing words in the BRB with zero allowance.

rigeld2 wrote: On top of the fact that you don't need specific permission to use saves versus any attacks - you're given that on page 20something (BRB not at hand, it's been quoted in this thread a few times). Now that the general permission exists, you must find something denying the permission. CC has that for cover saves. Power weapons deny armor saves in CC. Cite the rule that shows a ram denies any saves whatsoever.

Permission denied as ramming is not a shooting attack. Cover saves may be taken against shooting attacks per pages 21 and 39 of the BRB.

Neither page says anything of the sort. Quote the rule you're referring to please.

Spirit Leech being a ranged attack will be surprising to the Doom of Malantai - it's not a Monstrous Creature so can only make one shooting attack per turn - meaning he will never be able to use Cataclysm. And, of course, the problem of the DoM using a ranged attack during the opponents turn.

Specific special ability of the character as permitted by the Codex, and FAQ uses a ranged combat profile, thus it functions as a ranged combat attack and therefore is permissible that cover saves are taken against it. Codex RAW this should not be allowed, FAQ allows it therefore you may do so. There are tons of examples of abilities that occur without an action by the character being required. Does it count as the DoM's ranged attack um no as it is an area of effect ability that requires no action, therefore it can still use it's other ranged attack during the shooting phase. The profile of the attack uses range therefore a cover save is permitted against it per the BRB and supported by the FAQ(a valid question as RAW does not allow it). FAQ grants specific permission for an abiity which contradicts the rules. No such permission is granted, ever to RAM attacks.

Cite the rule that prevents a cover save against Spirit Leech since you say RAW does not allow it.

NecronLord3 wrote:Where is the clarification that neither is not a shooting attack?

Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from
the Deep attack? (p51)
A: Yes.

Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds inflicted
by the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability? (p58)
A: Yes.

Again you are not understanding the concept of the Permissive ruleset.

It has to say it is a shooting attack, otherwise it is not.

So do Spirit Leech and Terror from the Deep say they are Shooting attacks?

If the do not say then they are not shooting attacks.

Your argument falls apart.

rigeld2 wrote:
Neither page says anything of the sort. Quote the rule you're referring to please.

The third time:

I have:

A position in cover shields troops against flying Debris and enemy shots.

units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them.

Page 21

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting

Page 39

Cite the rule that prevents a cover save against Spirit Leech since you say RAW does not allow it.

It is not listed as a Shooting attack and does not have a ranged combat profile. Ranged Combat profiles list Strength, Range, and AP. Spirit leech is an area of effect ability against a leadership value which causes wounds. Nothing suggesting Cover Save should be allowed by RAW. FAQ allows it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

Your argument falls apart.

No, GW's reputation for inconsistency remains untarnished.

NecronLord3 wrote:
I have:

A position in cover shield troops troops against flying Debris and enemy shots.

Fluff. There is nothing regarding rules or a save in that sentence.

units in cover will normally get a saving throw regardless of what's firing at them.

Page 21

Context says that's referring to AP values not applying to cover saves - so irrelevant. By the way - how does Close Combat interact with that sentence in your world?

Cover does not provide protection in close combat as it does against shooting

Page 39

Your emphasis is correct. It doesn't. See how it's spelled out that you don't get cover saves in CC?
Is that repeated in the section on ramming?

Cite the rule that prevents a cover save against Spirit Leech since you say RAW does not allow it.

It is not listed as a Shooting attack and does not have a ranged combat profile. Ranged Combat profiles list Strength, Range, and AP. Spirit leech is an area of effect ability against a leadership value which causes wounds. Nothing suggesting Cover Save should be allowed by RAW. FAQ allows it.

Just quoting this to keep around for later.

rigeld2 wrote:
Fluff. There is nothing regarding rules or a save in that sentence..

Well then I guess the whole BRB is just 'Fluff' then. No wonder you don't understand the rules, at all.

This would appear to have gone around in circles for long enough. Since nobody appears to have anything new to add, I think we can move on.