Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?
There seem to be two schools of thought on this issue.
School 1: Stomp is a close combat attack (the attack is made in close combat while engaged in combat during the fight sub-phase and assigned an initiative step like all close combat attacks) and as such you cannot take a cover save against Stomp.
School 2: Stomp is a special attack that is not actually a close combat attack and you can take a cover save against it (nowhere is it disallowed)
A model is able to take a cover save against wounds/penetrating hits caused from a Stomp attack (only applicable on a 2-5 result). However, in most cases it will not be obscured and as such will not have LoS based cover. As such in most cases it will only get a cover save from Stealth/Shrouded or wargear/rules that grant an inherent cover save.
warhead01 wrote: This is confusing.
Are players actually asking for a cover save from a special close combat attack?
Or is this satire?
It was spawned from another thread going on that is discussing reducing a GMC to WS0 - it cannot therefore use it's normal attacks, but the debate is on Stomp, with some asserting that it's not a close combat attack.
Satire is always a fine line on the internet I feel.
I wasn't sure.
I saw the other thread but thought this was some kind of inside joke.
It was my understanding that cover saves were only granted to units who were hit by shooting attacks, which ever kind of shooting attacks. Stomp isn't listed any where I have seen as a shooting attack. Was it faq'ed? If so I missed it.
Stomp is s special attack that happens at the initiative 1 step. It cam only be used in close combat so simple logic can say it is a close combat attack. Now with regards to the WS 0. When reduced that low you can no longer stroke blows. However this rule exists mainly for basic troop types. It wasn't created with GC in mind getting reduced that low. Since it doesn't use WS and can still be made. Stomp gets the best of both worlds here as do all SH and GC.
warhead01 wrote: I wasn't sure.
I saw the other thread but thought this was some kind of inside joke.
It was my understanding that cover saves were only granted to units who were hit by shooting attacks, which ever kind of shooting attacks. Stomp isn't listed any where I have seen as a shooting attack. Was it faq'ed? If so I missed it.
Cover Saves are allowed for any Attack that does not have Ignore Cover. Close Combat Attacks have Ignore Cover. However, that does not mean that if it is not Shooting, it must be a Close Combat Attack. We have nothing stating as such, anyway.
Stomp is in another category, that of a Special Attack, and there aren't many of them. The only relationship it has to close combat attacks is timing and location, nothing else. It happens during an Initiative Step, when close combat attacks are used. It happens when the model is engaged, which does not allow for Shooting Attacks. However, it does not list itself as a close combat attack, nor does it use any of the model's characteristics, such as WS or A, to define itself.
mhalko1 wrote: Stomp is s special attack that happens at the initiative 1 step. It cam only be used in close combat so simple logic can say it is a close combat attack. Now with regards to the WS 0. When reduced that low you can no longer stroke blows. However this rule exists mainly for basic troop types. It wasn't created with GC in mind getting reduced that low. Since it doesn't use WS and can still be made. Stomp gets the best of both worlds here as do all SH and GC.
I should point out that it can be used outside of close combat. While the Stomper must be Engaged in close combat to start, the Stomps can extend beyond the Engagement of the Stomper, and hit those not Engaged or even Engaged in another Combat..
"Cover Saves are allowed for any Attack that does not have Ignore Cover. Close Combat Attacks have Ignore Cover. However, that does not mean that if it is not Shooting, it must be a Close Combat Attack. We have nothing stating as such, anyway. "
Which rule book are do you have?
This might be where my confusion is coming from.
The hard back rule book page 52, doesn't use the ignore cover special rule as a special rule, it just says, Models in close combat do not get cover saves and cannot go to ground. ( as there's no place to hide.)
Previous to that. regarding cover saves page 37, It says, targets need to be at least 25% obscured from to firer to get a cover save.
I'm not trying to be dense I read what you've posted as very broad blanket statements.
I guess my view is clear enough, that if Stomp isn't listed as a shooting attack then no cover saves apply and in a lot of cases even if it was cover saves wouldn't apply due to targets not being 25% obscured by cover as most things that Stomp are very large. (No ones hiding much of anywhere with in a few inches of a Stompa...)
Yes the stomps can engage those outside of combat but the attack cannot attack if there was no combat initially. It's the same as blast weapons. The cannot target into close combat but if it scatters the damage is still resolved.
Now if the OP is talking about his unit getting hit when it's out of combat then that's a different story
warhead01 wrote: "Cover Saves are allowed for any Attack that does not have Ignore Cover. Close Combat Attacks have Ignore Cover. However, that does not mean that if it is not Shooting, it must be a Close Combat Attack. We have nothing stating as such, anyway. "
Which rule book are do you have?
This might be where my confusion is coming from.
The hard back rule book page 52, doesn't use the ignore cover special rule as a special rule, it just says, Models in close combat do not get cover saves and cannot go to ground. ( as there's no place to hide.)
I was just using the short form for convenience. Is there any difference between Ignore Cover and how close combat attacks do not allow Cover Saves?
warhead01 wrote: Previous to that. regarding cover saves page 37, It says, targets need to be at least 25% obscured from to firer to get a cover save.
And Stealth and Shrouded provide a Cover Save without being Obscured. Did I say or imply otherwise?
warhead01 wrote: I'm not trying to be dense I read what you've posted as very broad blanket statements.
I don't know, some were quite specific, or rather specifically pointing out the lack of connections you seem to be making. One reason I stated, "However, that does not mean that if it is not Shooting, it must be a Close Combat Attack. We have nothing stating as such, anyway."
warhead01 wrote: I guess my view is clear enough, that if Stomp isn't listed as a shooting attack then no cover saves apply and in a lot of cases even if it was cover saves wouldn't apply due to targets not being 25% obscured by cover as most things that Stomp are very large. (No ones hiding much of anywhere with in a few inches of a Stompa...)
Talk about very broad blanket statements. What makes a non-Shooting Attack a Close Combat Attack?
The hard back rule book page 52, doesn't use the ignore cover special rule as a special rule, it just says, Models in close combat do not get cover saves and cannot go to ground. ( as there's no place to hide.)
Actually, it says they do not get Cover Saves against close combat attacks. Stomp is its own thing: a Stomp. Provided you have an applicable cover save (say, you Jinked earlier in the turn, or have Shrouded), you may still take a cover save vs Stomps.
I'd say they give them to guys outside the combat naturally (it'd be rather unfair otherwise), so giving them to guys in combat works too because cover saves aren't disallowed merely by being locked in combat. The end result is the same, but they're disallowed for a different reason.
Jimsolo wrote: Actually, it says they do not get Cover Saves against close combat attacks. Stomp is its own thing: a Stomp. Provided you have an applicable cover save (say, you Jinked earlier in the turn, or have Shrouded), you may still take a cover save vs Stomps.
It's uncanny how similar your phrasing and sentence structure is to your posting style a year and a half ago. Yay for consistency!
Jimsolo wrote: Actually, the rule is that you don't get cover saves from CCattacks. If you are in CC and somehow suffer a wound from a shooting attack (blast scatter, Karamazov, etc) then you can still take any applicable cover save.
FratHammer wrote: This would apply to stomps against units in ruins also I assume?
Yes, unless a vehicle when you would need to be obscured, which isn't possible as there is no firing model here.
If it was one of the ones the Stomper was Engaging, I would agree, but Stomps can hit models up sufficiently far enough away for the Vehicle to be in Cover and outside of Engagement.
It's more - how do you work out if you are obscured? Please answer that. If you can show how you are obscured then you can grant Los based cover saves.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It's more - how do you work out if you are obscured? Please answer that. If you can show how you are obscured then you can grant Los based cover saves.
How else do you work out being obscured? Stomp says nothing about changing this, so it would use the standard methods.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It's more - how do you work out if you are obscured? Please answer that. If you can show how you are obscured then you can grant Los based cover saves.
How else do you work out being obscured? Stomp says nothing about changing this, so it would use the standard methods.
I think the point is that the standard method requires a firing model to draw line of sight from, and in the case of Stomp there is no firing model as such.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It's more - how do you work out if you are obscured? Please answer that. If you can show how you are obscured then you can grant Los based cover saves.
How else do you work out being obscured? Stomp says nothing about changing this, so it would use the standard methods.
I think the point is that the standard method requires a firing model to draw line of sight from, and in the case of Stomp there is no firing model as such.
If there are no "firing models" how are you allocating wounds to the unit? Being in range of a firing model and being able to draw line of sight from a firing model is required.
Spoiler:
If none of the firing models are in range of a particular model in the target
unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it.
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in
the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It's more - how do you work out if you are obscured? Please answer that. If you can show how you are obscured then you can grant Los based cover saves.
How else do you work out being obscured? Stomp says nothing about changing this, so it would use the standard methods.
Please define the "standard method" yo uare using
Note, you cannot reference a "firing model" when using this "standard method" due to the utter absence of any firing model.
Col - your rules reference has no relevance. There are no firing models, therefore the rule "if none..." is a nullity.
Since Stomps can only occur during combat, are a special type of attack that is resolved in fight subphase, and cover saves are not allowed for attacks during combat, it is safe to assume that no cover saves are allowed for getting stepped on by an oversized boot. In order to receive a cover save, you have to prove that a Stomp is a shooting attack and that the target is obscured. Neither condition can be met.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Since Stomps can only occur during combat, are a special type of attack that is resolved in fight subphase, and cover saves are not allowed for attacks during combat, it is safe to assume that no cover saves are allowed for getting stepped on by an oversized boot. In order to receive a cover save, you have to prove that a Stomp is a shooting attack and that the target is obscured. Neither condition can be met.
SJ
Cover saves can only be taken against shooting attacks? Page reference for that please.
Or, is it more the case that Close Combat Attacks are specificallly stated as not allowing cover saves.
Yep, thats it, thats the way round the rules actually work...
Shooting PhaseCover Saves Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save.
Assault PhaseCover Saves Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks, and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground – there is nowhere to hide!
STOMP Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp attack. The Stomp attack is made in addition to the Super-heavy Walker’s normal attacks. Stomp attacks are resolved during the Fight sub-phase at the Initiative 1 step. This does not grant the model an additional Pile In move at the Initiative 1 step.
So, in order to get a cover save, the attack needs to be a shooting attack, and the target needs to be obscured, neither of which apply to a combat attack being used in the fighting sub-phase.
Charistoph wrote: How else do you work out being obscured? Stomp says nothing about changing this, so it would use the standard methods.
Please define the "standard method" yo uare using
Note, you cannot reference a "firing model" when using this "standard method" due to the utter absence of any firing model.
You take a view from the Stomping Model generating the Stomping Attacks after you fire off the Stomp Attacks.
Spoiler:
Determining Cover Saves If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model’s body (see General Principles) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save. Unless specifically stated otherwise, all cover provides a 5+ save. Some types of terrain provide better or worse cover saves; when this is the case the cover save provided will be stated in the rules for the terrain.
No "firing model"
jeffersonian000 wrote:Since Stomps can only occur during combat, are a special type of attack that is resolved in fight subphase, and cover saves are not allowed for attacks during combat, it is safe to assume that no cover saves are allowed for getting stepped on by an oversized boot. In order to receive a cover save, you have to prove that a Stomp is a shooting attack and that the target is obscured. Neither condition can be met.
A couple problems. Cover Saves are not allowed against close combat attacks, not attacks in close combat. It is a fine distinction, as it has not been proven that all Attacks during the fight sub-phase are close combat attacks. And that is something I keep asking for, but certain parties are assuming it is the definition and refusing to even research to provide it.
Also Stomps can hit targets outside of Combat, and residing in Cover, and it is at this point that things get glitchy in determining what Saves a model can get. If the target is not in combat, why does it qualify as a close combat attack? If a model in close combat is hit by a Scattered Blast, does he get a Cover Save, or is that one a close combat attack as well? I'm not saying those Engaged with the Super-Heavy are able to be obscured from it, but that Stealth Suit Squad in the Ruins 6" away is a different story.
Shooting PhaseCover Saves Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save.
Assault PhaseCover Saves Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks, and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground – there is nowhere to hide!
STOMP Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp attack. The Stomp attack is made in addition to the Super-heavy Walker’s normal attacks. Stomp attacks are resolved during the Fight sub-phase at the Initiative 1 step. This does not grant the model an additional Pile In move at the Initiative 1 step.
So, in order to get a cover save, the attack needs to be a shooting attack, and the target needs to be obscured, neither of which apply to a combat attack being used in the fighting sub-phase.
SJ
So, assumption is that if it is Special, it cannot be Shooting. That if it is not Shooting, it cannot be fired. If it happens in close combat, it must be a close combat attack.
Explain how to allocate wounds if there is no "firing model"
Spoiler:
Allocate Wounds
First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to
the firing unit, regardless of which model caused that Wound.
Closest Models
Sometimes it will be unclear which model in a target unit is closest to the firing unit
because there is no discernible difference between the firing unit and several models in
the target unit. If two or more models are equidistant from the firing unit, the
owning player chooses which model is attacked. That model is treated as being the
closest model and remains so until either the firing unit’s attack ends or the model is
slain.
Out of Range
If none of the firing models are in range of a particular model in the target
unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it. Note that, when determining if a
model is out of range, always use the firing weapon’s maximum range, even if it was a
Rapid Fire or Salvo weapon that was shooting at half range (it can be imagined that whilst
these weapons sacrificed accuracy or mobility to gain extra shots, their shots still travel
their full range and have luckily hit another enemy). If there are no models in the
target unit that are in range, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.
Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in
the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be
allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models
in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.
If there is no "firing model" you cannot allocate wounds and the wound pool will be emptied.
It only empties if there are no firing models within Los or range. If you have no firing models you cannot process this rule, as it is not relevant to you.
Random allocation would apply here, at a guess. Hilariously.
Christoph - FULLY read your own quote. Note it requires at least one "firer" (which would be a model that is firing, or a "firing model"). You don't have a firer. Please, show how you can be obscured when there is no firing model. Page and graph.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It only empties if there are no firing models within Los or range. If you have no firing models you cannot process this rule, as it is not relevant to you.
It's definitely very relevant if you cannot allocate wounds to the models being Stomped. That would make Stomp fairly weak as it would only do something on a roll of 6.
So trying to process Stomp as a shooting attack leads to critical steps you cannot complete.
You can however process Stomp fully as a close combat attack and resolve wound allocation.
When it comes to wound allocation an attack must be processed as a shooting attack or a close combat attack unless the attack includes its own rules for wound allocation.
What? Stomp is a special kind of attack, that uses a small blast template. It does not use a WS nor is it designated as a CC attack of any sort. It simply happens at I1 during the fight subphase.
If you conclude that it is an attack, im sorry but then you might as well conclude things that happen in accordance with attacks and sub effects to those attacks as things that you cannot take cover from.
Good example being the Lord of Change while equip with Staff of Change. When a model loses it's last wound during combat it explodes, placing the small blast template over it dealing X to everyone underneath it.
Now by this logic because this said attack originated because of a CC attack from the staff you cannot claim a cover save from the Blast. Which, I'm sorry, simply isn't true.
If you are placing a blast template of any sort over a model that model can and is able to gain Cover Saves so long as a special rule isn't forbidding it (IE Ignores Cover)
Stomp is no different. It is not a CC attack, it is a "Special attack" that happens at I1, nothing more, nothing less.
Stomp is no different. It is not a CC attack, it is a "Special attack" that happens at I1, nothing more, nothing less.
Your argument would work if a GMC could stomp while not in close combat.
A GMC must be in close combat to Stomp, so a Stomp is not merely a "'Special attack' that happens at I1, nothing more, nothing less"
Stomp is a (special) "attack in close combat"
Further, since Stomp is an "attack in close combat" and has not been identified as a shooting attack, we are required to use the rules for wound allocation from the fight sub-phase section and empty the wound pool at each initiative step.
We need permission to access any of the rules in the shooting phase since its at that time models have the permission to nominate a shooter and a target, select weapons, and deal with hits, wounds, cover saves, etc.
For example, here are the rules for Overwatch that gives permission to use those rules.
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the
enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves
and so on.
Stomp does not identify itself as a shooting attack nor does it say to resolve like a normal shooting attack. We have no recourse but to use the rules for wound allocation and saves that we have access to (which are those in the fight sub-phase section).
nosferatu1001 wrote:Christoph - FULLY read your own quote. Note it requires at least one "firer" (which would be a model that is firing, or a "firing model"). You don't have a firer. Please, show how you can be obscured when there is no firing model. Page and graph.
And read the rest of what I typed. I guess you missed what the Orkmoticons were for.
col_impact wrote:Your argument would work if a GMC could stomp while not in close combat.
A GMC must be in close combat to Stomp, so a Stomp is not merely a "'Special attack' that happens at I1, nothing more, nothing less"
Stomp is a (special) "attack in close combat"
Further, since Stomp is an "attack in close combat" and has not been identified as a shooting attack, we are required to use the rules for wound allocation from the fight sub-phase section and empty the wound pool at each initiative step.
We need permission to access any of the rules in the shooting phase since its at that time models have the permission to nominate a shooter and a target, select weapons, and deal with hits, wounds, cover saves, etc.
For example, here are the rules for Overwatch that gives permission to use those rules.
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the
enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves
and so on.
Stomp does not identify itself as a shooting attack nor does it say to resolve like a normal shooting attack. We have no recourse but to use the rules for wound allocation and saves that we have access to (which are those in the fight sub-phase section).
Your argument would have more weight if it ONLY affected close combat. Yes, it starts there, this has not been in argument at any point. However, close combat attacks are restricted to the unit you are Engaged with, and Stomp can not only affect units that are Engaged in other combats, but units not Engaged in combat at all.
So, that is why we are insisting that it does not follow the same rules, because it doesn't. It starts in close combat, but it reaches beyond. It does things that no standard close combat attack can do. So, unless we can tie something else besides timing and location to lock it in as a close combat attack, it remains in a legal grey area.
Charistoph wrote: Your argument would have more weight if it ONLY affected close combat. Yes, it starts there, this has not been in argument at any point. However, close combat attacks are restricted to the unit you are Engaged with, and Stomp can not only affect units that are Engaged in other combats, but units not Engaged in combat at all.
So, that is why we are insisting that it does not follow the same rules, because it doesn't. It starts in close combat, but it reaches beyond. It does things that no standard close combat attack can do. So, unless we can tie something else besides timing and location to lock it in as a close combat attack, it remains in a legal grey area.
More than timing and location lock it in as an "attack in close combat" since the GMC is definitively "in close combat."
When you Stomp you have access to the rules for Stomp and the rules from the fight sub-phase section.
You do not have access to the rules from the Shooting sequence.
The Stomp rule is in the position of specifying to use the rules for cover save from the Shooting sequence in order for the models affected to get to use that rule. However, Stomp makes no specification.
So resolve a cover save with the rules you have - which RAW means you don't get a cover save, unless you house rule it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It only empties if there are no firing models within Los or range. If you have no firing models you cannot process this rule, as it is not relevant to you.
It's definitely very relevant if you cannot allocate wounds to the models being Stomped. That would make Stomp fairly weak as it would only do something on a roll of 6.
So trying to process Stomp as a shooting attack leads to critical steps you cannot complete.
You can however process Stomp fully as a close combat attack and resolve wound allocation.
When it comes to wound allocation an attack must be processed as a shooting attack or a close combat attack unless the attack includes its own rules for wound allocation.
So you quote snip and ignore where I pointed out you would therefore use random allocation. Oh wait, that's rather dishonest...
I fully explained the holes in your argument, and therefore RAW you gain non-Los dependent cover saves.
I love how you skip over the close combat requirements as if they don't matter.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It only empties if there are no firing models within Los or range. If you have no firing models you cannot process this rule, as it is not relevant to you.
It's definitely very relevant if you cannot allocate wounds to the models being Stomped. That would make Stomp fairly weak as it would only do something on a roll of 6.
So trying to process Stomp as a shooting attack leads to critical steps you cannot complete.
You can however process Stomp fully as a close combat attack and resolve wound allocation.
When it comes to wound allocation an attack must be processed as a shooting attack or a close combat attack unless the attack includes its own rules for wound allocation.
So you quote snip and ignore where I pointed out you would therefore use random allocation. Oh wait, that's rather dishonest...
I fully explained the holes in your argument, and therefore RAW you gain non-Los dependent cover saves.
I love how you skip over the close combat requirements as if they don't matter.
Where do you get permission to access the rules from the Shooting Sequence?
When the GMC is stomping away in the fight sub-phase he only has access to the Stomp rules and the fight sub-phase rules.
It is not the shooting phase. Stomp has not been designated as a shooting attack. You do not have permission to use rules from the Shooting sequence.
Its rather odd to claim that stomp is not a Close combat attack because the blast marker can affect models not engaged.
Shooting an unit with a blast marker can shoot models that are not a designated target, however no one questions that it is still a shooting attack. So there is no reason to believe that being able to hit something with a blaster marker during close combat would also not be a close combat attack still.
Unless models hit by scattered blasts were not hit by shooting attacks, since they weren't the selected as a target.
Does it state anywhere that stomp is not a close combat attack?
col_impact wrote:More than timing and location lock it in as an "attack in close combat" since the GMC is definitively "in close combat."
The "in close combat" is the location...
col_impact wrote:When you Stomp you have access to the rules for Stomp and the rules from the fight sub-phase section.
And that is the timing.
col_impact wrote:You do not have access to the rules from the Shooting sequence.
And did we claim it was a shooting attack that used the shooting sequence?
col_impact wrote:The Stomp rule is in the position of specifying to use the rules for cover save from the Shooting sequence in order for the models affected to get to use that rule. However, Stomp makes no specification.
Now that much is true. It does not say one can take Cover Saves from a Stomp Attack. Nor does it say it is a Shooting Attack (any more than it is a close combat attack).
col_impact wrote:So resolve a cover save with the rules you have - which RAW means you don't get a cover save, unless you house rule it.
That is very true if you cannot fire off a Stomp Attack.
blaktoof wrote:Its rather odd to claim that stomp is not a Close combat attack because the blast marker can affect models not engaged.
I'm saying that if it starts in close combat, but can affect things outside of close combat, than it doesn't really fill all of a close combat attack's definitions, now does it.
blaktoof wrote:Shooting an unit with a blast marker can shoot models that are not a designated target, however no one questions that it is still a shooting attack. So there is no reason to believe that being able to hit something with a blaster marker during close combat would also not be a close combat attack still.
Where is a case of one these that does not involve a Shooting Weapon?
Where is a case of a Weapon provides Stomp Attacks with the Melee type?
blaktoof wrote:Unless models hit by scattered blasts were not hit by shooting attacks, since they weren't the selected as a target.
Shooting Weapons provide Shooting Attacks. Or were you referencing something else?
blaktoof wrote:Does it state anywhere that stomp is not a close combat attack?
Where does it say that it is? Can you provide the connections? You have yet to in this thread, nor the one before.
col_impact wrote: If there are no "firing models" how are you allocating wounds to the unit? Being in range of a firing model and being able to draw line of sight from a firing model is required.
Spoiler:
If none of the firing models are in range of a particular model in the target
unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it.
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in
the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it.
At a quick glance, I don't see why you couldn't use the rules given in the close combat section, as they're not close combat attack-specific in terms of rolling to and allocation of wounds, but are there to cover wound allocation for a given initiative step seemingly regardless of the nature of the attack.
"To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed."
It seem that Stomp attacks on a unit not engaged in the close combat would create an exception to the process of allocating to models in base contact etc. though this is covered by the line:
"Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase."
This would still allow cover saves from the likes of ruins or Jink from a previous turn, as only specifically close combat attacks (rather than attacks during or generally in close combat) disallow cover saves.
Unfortunately, Wounds are allocated directly to the models covered by the templates, and not in the manner of close combat attacks or shooting attacks.
Spoiler:
Non-vehicle Target - Kerr-runch: Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.
So, there is no "out of range" Wounds for Stomp Attacks, either.
col_impact wrote: If there are no "firing models" how are you allocating wounds to the unit? Being in range of a firing model and being able to draw line of sight from a firing model is required.
Spoiler:
If none of the firing models are in range of a particular model in the target
unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it.
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in
the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it.
At a quick glance, I don't see why you couldn't use the rules given in the close combat section, as they're not close combat attack-specific in terms of rolling to and allocation of wounds, but are there to cover wound allocation for a given initiative step seemingly regardless of the nature of the attack.
"To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed."
It seem that Stomp attacks on a unit not engaged in the close combat would create an exception to the process of allocating to models in base contact etc. though this is covered by the line:
"Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase."
This would still allow cover saves from the likes of ruins or Jink from a previous turn, as only specifically close combat attacks (rather than attacks during or generally in close combat) disallow cover saves.
Which rules for Cover Saves are you referring to? The rules in the Shooting Sequence or the rules in the Fighting Sub-phase? If you are using the rules for Cover Saves from the Shooting Sequence you will need to explain how you got permission to use those rules, since Stomp is not a shooting attack.
Remember, you are granted permission to take saves. Being able to take a Cover Save is something you have to have permission to take. The Shooting Sequence allows you to take a Cover Save. The Fight Sub-phase does not.
col_impact wrote: Which rules for Cover Saves are you referring to? The rules in the Shooting Sequence or the rules in the Fighting Sub-phase? If you are using the rules for Cover Saves from the Shooting Sequence you will need to explain how you got permission to use those rules, since Stomp is not a shooting attack.
Remember, you are granted permission to take saves. Being able to take a Cover Save is something you have to have permission to take. The Shooting Sequence allows you to take a Cover Save. The Fight Sub-phase does not.
It's in the first line of 'Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties':
"To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed."
your quote doesn not permit cover saves...
it just says IF you have one you can use it. but. there is not any word that tells you that you have a cover self at all.
your quote doesn not permit cover saves...
it just says IF you have one you can use it. but. there is not any word that tells you that you have a cover self at all.
This is what allows cover saves:
"Sometimes, a model will have a normal Armour Save and a separate invulnerable save – a good example is a Space Marine Captain, who is protected by both power armour and a force field from his iron halo. As if this wasn’t enough, the model might be in cover as well. In these cases, a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save." (The Shooting Phase Chapter, Models With More Than One Save section).
coupled with the part about Wounds being allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase, we see that, unless explicitly disallowed, a model can take a cover save.
your quote doesn not permit cover saves...
it just says IF you have one you can use it. but. there is not any word that tells you that you have a cover self at all.
then the quotet part still does not say anything about saves at all. it only tells you " if you have any you can use it"
Stealth or Shrouded GIVES you a cover sase. so this is totaly a different story
That's kind of the point we're discussing. The premise is that the model must have been granted a cover save from the likes of ruins, Shrouded or Stealth, or Jink. Or anything else that simply gives a model a cover save without requiring it to be obscured.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that a model can always take a cover save against a Stomp attack for no particular reason.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It only empties if there are no firing models within Los or range. If you have no firing models you cannot process this rule, as it is not relevant to you.
It's definitely very relevant if you cannot allocate wounds to the models being Stomped. That would make Stomp fairly weak as it would only do something on a roll of 6.
So trying to process Stomp as a shooting attack leads to critical steps you cannot complete.
You can however process Stomp fully as a close combat attack and resolve wound allocation.
When it comes to wound allocation an attack must be processed as a shooting attack or a close combat attack unless the attack includes its own rules for wound allocation.
So you quote snip and ignore where I pointed out you would therefore use random allocation. Oh wait, that's rather dishonest...
I fully explained the holes in your argument, and therefore RAW you gain non-Los dependent cover saves.
I love how you skip over the close combat requirements as if they don't matter.
Where do you get permission to access the rules from the Shooting Sequence?
When the GMC is stomping away in the fight sub-phase he only has access to the Stomp rules and the fight sub-phase rules.
It is not the shooting phase. Stomp has not been designated as a shooting attack. You do not have permission to use rules from the Shooting sequence.
Oh that old nonsense again.
You can use the rules from the shooting phase, as they are the first time they are mentioned. Because the game goes move, shoot, assault, so the first time you are likely to use an armour save in the game, is during the shooting pahse
Or will you now claim you cannot make armour saves in close combat, because they are in the shooting phase?
PLease, try to use something less half baked as an argument.
So, again. Prove it is a Close Combat Attack. Page and grapgh. You failed to do so in the other thread, and as only a Close Combat Attack inherently denies cover saves, you MUST do this, otherwise your argument falls flat here as well.
So, until then I will just follow the written rules, and non-LOS based cover saves may be taken against the 2 - 5 result on stomp. I also wont play Stomp as being AP2 when from a GMC either as it is not a close combat attack.
Agreed. Just because something happens in the assault phase, it does not automatically pick up the 'generic' rules for close combat attacks - hammer of wrath, for example, is most usually associated with monstrous creatures, but doesn't benefit from smash.
Toxic Miasma feels it needs to explicitely state it has the Ignores Cover special rule.
In a more narrative example - not that narrative drives rules debates, but some degree of fair play should be - given that the victim of a stomp could be a unit 6" away, not locked in the assault, in area terrain, behind an intervening unit, with stealth and shrouded, it's not unreasonable that said unit might expect a cover save.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Can you use a cover save for a Vector Strike? Or a Hammer of Wrath?
SJ
Vector strike has the ignores cover special rule
Does Stomp? Page and Graph to support please.
If every attack thatr occured during close combat was a CLose Combat Attack and so ignored cover why does the Destroyer Hive have "ignores cover" as a special rule? Is this redundant wording, or - just possibly - is it utterly fallacious to decide that anything that happens during the ASsault phase is a close combat attack?
Jeffersonian - do you play that vehicle exploisions grant a cover save? How about a vehicle explosion in the assault phase, does that grant one? One in the shooting phase? or movement phase? Perhaps col_impact can answer that one - given their ludicrous contention that you cannot access rules that appear in the shooting phase outside of the shooting phase, what happens when you explode a vehicle in the movement phase (from a dropped bomb, for example) and you are standing in cover - or, hell, you would like to use your armour save (which appears inthe shooting phase section)?
Or, just maybe, smoething that is NOT a Close Combat Attack does not, amazingly enough, gain the rules of a Close Combat Attack. So, inherently it does not ignore cover saves, it just makes it really difficult to take LOS based saves.
I play by the rules as written, and take each situation that occurs on a case by case basis. In the case of Stomps, per the BRB, there is not enough support within the rules to infer a cover save for what occurs as a special type of close combat attack. My previous question about Vector Strike and Hammer of Wrath was to demonstrate how other types of attacks that fall under the catagory of "special" treat this subject. Of the two, Vector Strike could legitimately lead to a cover saver if it weren't for a specific restriction, while Hammar of Wrath is a legitimate close combat attack. Where Stomp goes astray for some is its ability to hit units outside of close combat with a blast marker. Per the BRB, Stomp is not listed as a shooting attack, nor a blast. Stomp does occur in the fight sub-phase with specific rules for how to handle wound allocation, yet not special mention is noted for cover saves. As this is a permissive rule set, and no permission is given, we can rightly assume no permission exists. Shooting attacks grant permission. Vector Strike can be considered an out of sequence shooting attack, yet it has a specific restriction to the general permission. Close combat attack specifical do not allow cover saves. With a lack of permission for cover saves from Stomps, there is no precedence to assume a cover save would be allowed even to units hit outside of combat and in cover.
So, since you state there is a requirement for "specific" permission to takea cover save - despite that being a falsehood, unsupported in the rules - where is the specific permission to takea cover save froma vehicle explosion? Or do you not allow cover?
Or, you follow the rules as written, and when you meet the conditions to do so, you may take a cover save. In fact, if it is your BEST save, you MUST take it. Unless SPECIFICALLY told otherwise.
You are not told otherwise with Stomp
RAW you may take any non-LOS based cover save
if you disagree, actual ruels - and not your made up ones - are required.
Yes. That this is a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
This does not mean it is a Close Combat Attack, as it follows none of the procedures for a Close Combat Attack, and is not specifically defined as such.
IF you disagree, having not read this or the linked thread, please post some rules up...
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes. That this is a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
This does not mean it is a Close Combat Attack, as it follows none of the procedures for a Close Combat Attack, and is not specifically defined as such.
IF you disagree, having not read this or the linked thread, please post some rules up...
That is the weakest argument I think I've ever heard. No. Just, no.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes. That this is a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
This does not mean it is a Close Combat Attack, as it follows none of the procedures for a Close Combat Attack, and is not specifically defined as such.
IF you disagree, having not read this or the linked thread, please post some rules up...
That is the weakest argument I think I've ever heard. No. Just, no.
Awesome, thanks for visiting the rules subforum, where you must back up your assertions with rules
You didnt do so
If it is so weak, counter it. Failure to do so makes your assertion seem....less than strong.
JinxDragon wrote: If it is a weak argument, you should be able to post Rules that easily counter it?
I just have. Read up.
Here's another: which parts of the rules allow you to take cover saves? I'll give you a clue: in the chapter called 'Shooting Phase' is one. Go on, make a list, and see if your list includes close combat attacks or special attacks.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes. That this is a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
This does not mean it is a Close Combat Attack, as it follows none of the procedures for a Close Combat Attack, and is not specifically defined as such.
IF you disagree, having not read this or the linked thread, please post some rules up...
That is the weakest argument I think I've ever heard. No. Just, no.
Awesome, thanks for visiting the rules subforum, where you must back up your assertions with rules
You didnt do so
If it is so weak, counter it. Failure to do so makes your assertion seem....less than strong.
Thanks for that. If you scroll up a little, you'll see I just quoted two rules. D'oh!
In return, I can't see anywhere you've posted anything other than trying to break the English language and the structure of the rule book. Thanks again.
You have provided no counter to this, just vague assertions with no backing.
I covered the HILARIOUSLY terrible argument that cover saves can only be taken in the shooting pohase already, I note that yet again your failure to even have the courtesy to read the thead rears its head, when you make the same tired, flawed argument here
So, follow the Tenets: your argument has been proven wrong, rebut or concede.
I saw a quote stating they can make a Special Attack called Stomp, how does this prove it is also a Close Combat Attack?
Also the reasoning that Cover Saves are only found in the Shooting Phase, so require the attack to occur during the Shooting Phase, is greatly flawed. Wounds are generated in other Phases as well, so unless all these Wounds suddenly ignore the Saving process it is very difficult to conclude this one situation ignores the Saving process. Like wise, many of these out-of-Shooting-Phase generated Wounds have a specific clause forbidding Cover Saves, heavily suggesting that they would otherwise be able to take these Saves.
You have provided no counter to this, just vague assertions with no backing.
I covered the HILARIOUSLY terrible argument that cover saves can only be taken in the shooting pohase already, I note that yet again your failure to even have the courtesy to read the thead rears its head, when you make the same tired, flawed argument here
So, follow the Tenets: your argument has been proven wrong, rebut or concede.
So you can't post rules, you can't answer the questions, and you want to abuse the language and concepts of the game in order to make some bizarre argument which, deep down, you know is incorrect.
Please list a rule gives you permission to have a cover save in close combat or against a a stomp attack. It should be very simple - there's a big section on Stomp attacks on page 96.
The onus is on YOU to prove a cover save is denied
The rules are quite clear that you may not make cover saves against close combat attacks. Prove that Stomp is a close combat attack.
Prove that Stomp has the ignore cover special rule
If not, I will use the rules REQUIRING me to take my best save to allow my theoretical dire avengers to take a cover save while stood in Ruins, against a 2 - 5 result on the stomp table.
As, undeniably, they HAVE a cover save.
(YOur denials do not count, as they lack any rules basis)
No, it's not. You know that's not how warhammer works. You are only allowed to do things that the rules tell you that you can do. So if you want to take a cover save, against either a CC attack, a Stomp attack, or a special CC stomp attack (however you want to put it), then you need to show some rules.
The rules are quite clear that you may not make cover saves against close combat attacks. Prove that Stomp is a close combat attack.
That is a bit irrelevent, but I'll humour you. Any sensible reading of the rule (which I posted about ten post back) show this. Sure, you can warp the language and structure of the game, but that doesn't really help you. There isn't any reasonable doubt that a Stomp is not a CC attack. Still, it's a bit irrelevent, and is an attempt at deflection.
Prove that Stomp has the ignore cover special rule
I don't believe it does, nor does it need to. Stop deflecting.
If not, I will use the rules REQUIRING me to take my best save to allow my theoretical dire avengers to take a cover save while stood in Ruins, against a 2 - 5 result on the stomp table.
As, undeniably, they HAVE a cover save.
Please quote some rules to support this wild assumption, or withdraw the statement.
(YOur denials do not count, as they lack any rules basis)
Rules, please. Show that you get a cover save vs stomp. As I said, it should be really really easy. There's lots of references to cover saves throughout the rule book, and lots of text on p96 regarding Stomp attacks.
Don't feed the Nos. Doesn't matter how many times you cite rules to support your position, he just ignores it and posts that you never supported your argument.
And in this case, the burden is on the person attempting to use a cover save versus a Stomp to prove that they can. Good luck with that.
No, it's not. You know that's not how warhammer works. You are only allowed to do things that the rules tell you that you can do. So if you want to take a cover save, against either a CC attack, a Stomp attack, or a special CC stomp attack (however you want to put it), then you need to show some rules.
The rules for Ruins state I havea acover save
The rules tell me to take my est available save
PROVE the cover save is not available.
PROVE IT. With rules of your own. I have basic permission to take any save I have - as already posted, yet you ignore
Ffyllotek wrote:
The rules are quite clear that you may not make cover saves against close combat attacks. Prove that Stomp is a close combat attack.
That is a bit irrelevent, but I'll humour you. Any sensible reading of the rule (which I posted about ten post back) show this. Sure, you can warp the language and structure of the game, but that doesn't really help you. There isn't any reasonable doubt that a Stomp is not a CC attack. Still, it's a bit irrelevent, and is an attempt at deflection.
No, it is a genuine attempt to get you to cite relevant rules to support your position
You have, again, failed to do so
There is NO rule stating Stomp is a CC Attack. It follows none of the rules for CC Attacks, lacking a weapon, WS, S or Toughness, etc. In ANY "sensible reading of the rules" (Which is your clutching at straws, failing to provide any results so resorting to ad hominem - against the forum tenets, and a logical fallacy) so any senssible reading tells you it is what it states it is:
A Special Attack
Do you believe Destroyer Hive is a CC Attack?
Ffyllotek wrote:
Prove that Stomp has the ignore cover special rule
I don't believe it does, nor does it need to. Stop deflecting.
WHy does it "not need to"? It does if you want it to Ignore Cover. Or, you could prove it is a CLose Combat Attack - which you havent done, and in fact refuse to do.
Ffyllotek wrote:
If not, I will use the rules REQUIRING me to take my best save to allow my theoretical dire avengers to take a cover save while stood in Ruins, against a 2 - 5 result on the stomp table.
As, undeniably, they HAVE a cover save.
Please quote some rules to support this wild assumption, or withdraw the statement.
Ruins, page 108.
"Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured"
Proven. Note this is not conditional on shooting. ,they receive this save
Models with more than one save, page 38
"a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save"
So, categorically proven:
I HAVE a cover save (of 4+)
I MUST use it
Over to you
Prove it is a close combat attack, 3trd time of asking. The rules you posted simply show it is a Special Attack used during Clsoe Combat. A lot like the Destroyer Hive
Failure, again, to show this shows you have no intention of debating honestly, and your argument can be ignored as irrelevant.
Ffyllotek wrote:
(YOur denials do not count, as they lack any rules basis)
Rules, please. Show that you get a cover save vs stomp. As I said, it should be really really easy. There's lots of references to cover saves throughout the rule book, and lots of text on p96 regarding Stomp attacks.
Its been proven, so over to you
Jeffersonian - still waiting on you to answer the posted questions DO you allow a cover save against vehicle explosions in the:
a) Movement phase?
b) Shooting Phase?
c) Assault phase?
Is the Destroyer Hive (Typhus) a close combat attack? If "yes", why does it have the Ignores Cover special rule?
It's a very simple couple of questions - given your ad hominem about me not posting rules (not true, another lie from you!) perhaps you could, for once, support your reams of posts with smoetrhing approaching a consistent, logical argument?
There is one other special attack that can be considered, prince yriel in the eldar codex has the eye of wrath, a once per game special attack that he can make in close combat instead of his regular attacks. This power does not mention in the codex that it either grants or denies cover. I know a lot of people feel that this doesn't matter, but I thought I'd mention that the itc has faq'ed that cover saves can not be taken against this power, this is the only similar ruling if seen involving close combat special attacks.
The ITC makes a lot of changes to the rules and does not label them as such. They are a terrible resource for arguing rules as written in the rulebook, as their rules changes are not labelled as such.
Eye of Wrath is NOT a Close Combat Attack, so cover saves, if available, can be taken as normal.
Ffyllotek wrote:No, it's not. You know that's not how warhammer works. You are only allowed to do things that the rules tell you that you can do. So if you want to take a cover save, against either a CC attack, a Stomp attack, or a special CC stomp attack (however you want to put it), then you need to show some rules.
The thing is, a Stomp Attack is not defined as anything else but a Special Attack. The only relationship it has with close combat is timing (I step 1) and location (close combat).
Ffyllotek wrote:That is a bit irrelevent, but I'll humour you. Any sensible reading of the rule (which I posted about ten post back) show this. Sure, you can warp the language and structure of the game, but that doesn't really help you. There isn't any reasonable doubt that a Stomp is not a CC attack. Still, it's a bit irrelevent, and is an attempt at deflection.
Somewhat relevant, actually. One of the key reasons why some have been saying that Stomp does not allow Cover Saves is because it is a close combat attack (you implied as such with your first post as well). Stomp as a close combat attack has not been proven, though. Which puts us in a grey area, especially with the way GW writes.
For example, can you Look Out Sir! a Dangerous Terrain Wound? How about from Perils of the Warp? How about from a Stomp Attack?
Look Out Sir!, only technically addresses from shooting attacks and close combat attacks in their titles, however, they do not indicate as such on one of the rules, and just say "any wound allocated to a Character", and leaves it at that.
The main issue here is that Charistoph and the other assume that a Stomp attck isn't a "close combat attack." But when you look at the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase the first time the specific phrase "close combat attack" is used in actually in the rules concerning cover saves (pg52). Up until that point only attacks in close combat are mentioned. Now according to the index Close Combat attacks are explained on page 49, but they never use the term there. So we only can assume that "close combat attacks" are the same as "attacks in close combat". Now on pg 49 it states in the Number of Attacks paragrahp which and how much attacks a model has. One of the ways as specified by the Other Bonusses section is by a special rule.
And guess what Stomp is a special rule that states a SHW engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
So here we have an attack in combat provided y a special rule. So according to the rules that state what a close combat attack is and how a model can get these attacks, this special attack is an "Attack in Close Combat" which is the same as a "Close Combat Attack".
So no guys, you are not allowed to make cover saves for a Stomp Attack.
aemon wrote: The main issue here is that Charistoph and the other assume that a Stomp attck isn't a "close combat attack." But when you look at the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase the first time the specific phrase "close combat attack" is used in actually in the rules concerning cover saves (pg52). Up until that point only attacks in close combat are mentioned. Now according to the index Close Combat attacks are explained on page 49, but they never use the term there. So we only can assume that "close combat attacks" are the same as "attacks in close combat". Now on pg 49 it states in the Number of Attacks paragrahp which and how much attacks a model has. One of the ways as specified by the Other Bonusses section is by a special rule.
And guess what Stomp is a special rule that states a SHW engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
So here we have an attack in combat provided y a special rule. So according to the rules that state what a close combat attack is and how a model can get these attacks, this special attack is an "Attack in Close Combat" which is the same as a "Close Combat Attack".
So no guys, you are not allowed to make cover saves for a Stomp Attack.
The white text is where your argument fails as its based on an assumption on your part instead of actual, written rules.
@Ghaz, if that is the case can you specify where and how Close Combat Attacks are defined. As far as I can tell nowhere in the rules is mentioned exactly what a Close Combat Attack is.
@Happyjew, no. The Stomp rules them self, specify how the wounds caused by Stomp are resolved, which overrides any possible interaction with Smash.
aemon wrote: @Ghaz, if that is the case can you specify where and how Close Combat Attacks are defined. As far as I can tell nowhere in the rules is mentioned exactly what a Close Combat Attack is.
@Happyjew, no. The Stomp rules them self, specify how the wounds caused by Stomp are resolved, which overrides any possible interaction with Smash.
If Stomp is a close combat attack, then per Smash it is AP2, since all close combat attacks (except Hammer of Wrath) are AP2.
aemon wrote: The main issue here is that Charistoph and the other assume that a Stomp attck isn't a "close combat attack."
Can you provide incontrovertible proof that a Stomp Attack IS a close combat attack? So far, we've only had circumstantial. So far we know it is a Special Attack, with nothing else to define it as either close combat or shooting aside from location and timing.
aemon wrote: But when you look at the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase the first time the specific phrase "close combat attack" is used in actually in the rules concerning cover saves (pg52). Up until that point only attacks in close combat are mentioned. Now according to the index Close Combat attacks are explained on page 49, but they never use the term there. So we only can assume that "close combat attacks" are the same as "attacks in close combat". Now on pg 49 it states in the Number of Attacks paragrahp which and how much attacks a model has. One of the ways as specified by the Other Bonusses section is by a special rule.
So, circumstantial assumptions are used to define close combat attacks? That has been the problem in both threads.
aemon wrote: And guess what Stomp is a special rule that states a SHW engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp Attack.
Necron Nightbringer's Gaze of Death happens in the Shooting Phase, does that make it a Shooting Attack? No, it does not. Location alone does not define what type an Attack is.
aemon wrote: So here we have an attack in combat provided y a special rule. So according to the rules that state what a close combat attack is and how a model can get these attacks, this special attack is an "Attack in Close Combat" which is the same as a "Close Combat Attack".
So no guys, you are not allowed to make cover saves for a Stomp Attack.
Except not all Stomp Attacks may be in close combat. It may start there, but some of it may hit units that are not in any Engagement or be affected by close combat attacks.
So no, it is not a close combat attack. It's not a shooting attack. It is a special attack called Stomp. Cover Saves are not specifically denied, but they are not specifically allowed, either. It can easily be argued that the initial Stomp (and sometimes only) will usually happen in close combat (though, it is possible that it may not, though that is hard to set up), so it could be argued that Cover Saves are not allowed there. However, for Stomp Attacks that hit beyond the Engagement the Super-Heavy is involved in, they could easily be argued as not close combat attacks, but something else. The ability to take Cover Saves in these instances is where it is grey and not well defined.
Yes, but that would be true nay if those arguing the unsupportable argument were consistent.
They want it to be a close combat attack, despite it not being so, but don't want to admit that makes stomp ap2, when clearly it isn't meant to be.
As predicted, still no answer to whether cover saves can be taken from vehicles exploding in any phase, or whether destroyer hive is a close combat attack....
The answer must lie in the cover save text for the Assault Phase!
Pg52
"Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks, and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground - there is nowhere to hide!"
Except this last bit contradicts the state of the game! If you're stomping into cover a distance away, there clearly IS a place to hide! Lots of them, in fact.
That really is an interesting pondering:
If permission to Save against a wound is not granted by default, then Saves can only be taken in situations that specifically mention Saving Throws....
If a Terminator is Stomped on and the result is a 3, does he get any Saves?
JinxDragon wrote: That really is an interesting pondering:
If permission to Save against a wound is not granted by default, then Saves can only be taken in situations that specifically mention Saving Throws....
If a Terminator is Stomped on and the result is a 3, does he get any Saves?
Permission to save against a wound is granted in the fight sub-phase rules. Stomp relies on the Stomp rules and the rules of the fight sub-phase which allocates and resolve wounds at each initiative step.
The rule book could be written better and talk about 'default attacks' and 'default' this or that, which would help in cases like Stomp where the things we would like explicitly laid out simply are not explicitly laid out. But that's not the rule book we have.
Not sure why people are making up "special attacks"
if you can find the section on "special attacks" in the BRB quote it, or stop making it up.
Stomp is an attack. An attack in addition to a models normal attacks. Under stomp this is not spelled out specifically what it is.
Hammer of wrath uses the same wording as stomp, it is an attack. It happens when engaged in addition to a models normal attacks.
Smash, calls out hammer of wrath as a close combat attack.
If two rules happen at the same time (during fight sub phase- when blows are struck) and use the same wording for what they are, and one is specifically said to be a close combat attack within the rules of the game, albeit outside of its own rule, then obviously they are both close combat attacks.
there are no such things as special attacks.
There are a models normal attacks, and then there are rules/special rules that grant attacks in addition to a models normal attacks.
JinxDragon wrote: Col_Impact,
Can you quote the clause granting permission for Saves to be taken for me please, I am probably just overlooking it.
Spoiler:
Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties
To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, you will need
to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed. If
several pools of Wounds need to be allocated, the player making the Attacks must decide
in which order they are allocated. All Wounds from a single pool must be allocated
before moving on to the next pool of Wounds.
Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in
the Shooting phase. However, as you’ll often have many models in base contact with
the enemy, there will be many models tied for the privilege of dying first.
To resolve casualty removal, allocate each Wound as follows:
• A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a
model attacking at that Initiative step. If there is more than one eligible candidate,
the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to.
Roll the model’s saving throw (if it has one) and remove the casualty (if necessary).
• If there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative
step, the Wound is allocated to the next closest enemy model locked in that combat. If
two or more models are equidistant from the attack, the player controlling the models
being attacked chooses which model is closest. Take any save and remove the casualty
(if necessary).
In either case, once a model has a Wound allocated to it during an Initiative step, you
must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the
Wound pool is empty. Note that all of the models in the target unit may be hit,
wounded and removed as casualties during an Initiative step, including those
that are not engaged. You can speed this process up by allocating Wounds in groups
(see Fast Dice).
Allocating Wounds
Cover Saves
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds suffered from close combat attacks,
and for obvious reasons, cannot Go to Ground – there is nowhere to hide!
Armour Saving Throws
Models can take armour saves to prevent Wounds caused in close combat – provided that
their armour is good enough, of course! As in the Shooting phase, if the Wound is caused
by a weapon with an AP that ignores the wounded model’s Armour Save, then the save
cannot be taken.
Invulnerable Saves
An invulnerable save can be made, if it is the best save available. It can even be made if a
model is not permitted to take an armour save (because the AP of the attack negates it or
the rules for a weapon or Attack state that no armour save is allowed).
warhead01 wrote: I wasn't sure.
I saw the other thread but thought this was some kind of inside joke.
It was my understanding that cover saves were only granted to units who were hit by shooting attacks, which ever kind of shooting attacks. Stomp isn't listed any where I have seen as a shooting attack. Was it faq'ed? If so I missed it.
This is not correct. What the rules actually are is that you cannot take cover against melee attacks, or anything that explicitly ignores cover. So any attack which is untyped does allow a cover save.
warhead01 wrote: I wasn't sure.
I saw the other thread but thought this was some kind of inside joke.
It was my understanding that cover saves were only granted to units who were hit by shooting attacks, which ever kind of shooting attacks. Stomp isn't listed any where I have seen as a shooting attack. Was it faq'ed? If so I missed it.
This is not correct. What the rules actually are is that you cannot take cover against melee attacks, or anything that explicitly ignores cover. So any attack which is untyped does allow a cover save.
Incorrect. There is no such thing as an untyped attack.
Permission to take a cover save from shooting attacks is granted in the Shooting Sequence rules.
Permission to take armor saves and invulnerable saves from close combat attacks is granted in the Fight Sub-phase. Cover saves are not granted in the Fight Sub-phase.
So by default we can take cover saves from shooting attacks.
And by default we cannot take cover saves from close combat attacks.
In the cases where an attack is not specified as a shooting attack or a close combat attack, the rules for the attack often come packed with how to handle the attack.
Spoiler:
Gaze of Death: In its Shooting phase, in addition to using Powers of the C’tan, this model
can target one non-vehicle enemy unit within 12" to which it has line of sight. The unit
suffers a number of Wounds equal to 3D6 minus its Leadership, resolved at AP2 and with the
Ignores Cover special rule. If at least one unsaved Wound is inflicted, the C’tan Shard of the
Nightbringer immediately regains one Wound lost earlier in the battle.
In the case of Stomp, Stomp is an "attack in close combat" that relies on its rules and the rules for the fight sub-phase (for wound allocation, saves, etc.).
It is robed in the rules for close combat but is not explicitly named a "close combat attack."
blaktoof wrote: Not sure why people are making up "special attacks"
No one is. Stomp generates a special attack. It says so in the first couple of sentences.
blaktoof wrote: if you can find the section on "special attacks" in the BRB quote it, or stop making it up.
Okay...
Spoiler:
Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp attack.
blaktoof wrote: Stomp is an attack. An attack in addition to a models normal attacks. Under stomp this is not spelled out specifically what it is.
Sure it is, a "special attack" and then describes how that special attack is resolved.
blaktoof wrote: Hammer of wrath uses the same wording as stomp, it is an attack. It happens when engaged in addition to a models normal attacks.
Ummm... Not quite.
Spoiler:
If a model with this special rule ends its charge move in base or hull contact with an enemy model, it makes one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model’s unmodified Strength with AP-.
I don't see a mention of it being a special attack...
There is no category of attack called "special attack".
There is a category of attack called "Stomp attack".
Stomp is a special type of attack in a category all its own, namely "Stomp attack".
It's both, obviously. It says so itself. It's an advanced rule which is designed to make stuff up, and this one does it by the barrel.
Except "special attack" does not exist in the rule book and there are no rules for it. You will not find the word "special" immediately followed by word "attack" anywhere in the rule book.
There is such a thing called "Special Rules." That is a defined thing in the BRB.
There is also such a thing called "Stomp attack"
Spoiler:
Super-heavy Walkers engaged in combat may make a special type of attack called a Stomp
attack.
You are simply getting confused by the sentence. "Special" is just an adjective modifying "type" conveying that it is different than what is usual.
jokerkd wrote: A codex has a "special attack". is it really any different from "a special type of attack"?
Rules quote please. The BRB does not say "a codex has a 'special attack.'"
"Special attack" is not a recognized category in the BRB. In fact, it's not even a word combination you will find in the BRB.
Stomp attack is a recognized category in the BRB and we have rules for performing Stomp attacks. And, lo and behold, it is a word combination you will find in the BRB.
If you feel otherwise, back up what you say with rules.
Mr. Shine wrote: A "special type of attack" is also not clearly a "close combat attack".
And I don't believe the rulebook actually says, "All attacks have a type; generally either shooting or close combat," or similar.
The basic rules give permission for models to take cover saves, armor saves, and invul saves against shooting attacks.
The basic rules give permission for models to take armor saves and invul saves against close combat attacks.
The rules for Stomp are advanced rules that indicate there is another kind of attack called a Stomp attack that relies on the rules for the Fight sub-phase.
The rules for this new category of attack, called a Stomp attack, do not give permission for models to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.
Screw it, while we're breaking the game because of inconsistencies within the rules, Im gonna start fielding Ateos'Rau'Keres again and cheese the crap out of the fact that it states "Pink horrors summoned this way may not shoot in the shooting phase" when Pink Horrors no longer make shooting attacks outside the Psychic Phase as all they can do is use Psychic abilities.
If we are going to continue arguing it and none of us can come to a consensus, then house rule it to your best ability and talk to people before games. 40k is a broken game over saturated with conflicting rule sets and sloppy mechanics all around, we need to deal with it, with our opponents.
col_impact wrote: The basic rules give permission for models to take cover saves, armor saves, and invul saves against shooting attacks.
The basic rules give permission for models to take armor saves and invul saves against close combat attacks.
The rules for Stomp are advanced rules that indicate there is another kind of attack called a Stomp attack that relies on the rules for the Fight sub-phase.
The rules for this new category of attack, called a Stomp attack, do not give permission for models to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.
Well, no. The rules for armour and other saves, while in the shooting section, are not even part of the shooting sequence. The shooting sequence comes to a close after you move to "select another weapon", the section after which explains armour saves.
In any event, the rules explaining how armour and other saves are taken actually tell us that they may be taken when a model suffers a wound, without actually referencing the origin or type of the attack causing that wound. Thus we have general permission to take saves against successful wounds, with only close combat attacks removing the ability to take cover saves.
The rules for cover saves don't limit their general allowance to be taken:
"Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
col_impact wrote: The basic rules give permission for models to take cover saves, armor saves, and invul saves against shooting attacks.
The basic rules give permission for models to take armor saves and invul saves against close combat attacks.
The rules for Stomp are advanced rules that indicate there is another kind of attack called a Stomp attack that relies on the rules for the Fight sub-phase.
The rules for this new category of attack, called a Stomp attack, do not give permission for models to take cover saves against Stomp attacks.
Well, no. The rules for armour and other saves, while in the shooting section, are not even part of the shooting sequence. The shooting sequence comes to a close after you move to "select another weapon", the section after which explains armour saves.
In any event, the rules explaining how armour and other saves are taken actually tell us that they may be taken when a model suffers a wound, without actually referencing the origin or type of the attack causing that wound. Thus we have general permission to take saves against successful wounds, with only close combat attacks removing the ability to take cover saves.
The rules for cover saves don't limit their general allowance to be taken:
"Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
On the contrary. Cover saves are not generally allowed. Your quote clearly indicates that "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots. Where this is the case . . . "
Sounds like the burden is on you to tie Stomp Attack with "flying debris" or "enemy shots". Good luck with that.
Mr. Shine wrote: "Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
On the contrary. Cover saves are not generally allowed. Your quote clearly indicates that "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots. Where this is the case . . . "
Or from a proper English comprehension standpoint, models being partially hidden or obscured by terrain is what where this is the case refers to. The sentence you quoted is a description of Cover, which was already defined in the sentence prior ending with "which is also known as being in cover".
Mr. Shine wrote: "Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
On the contrary. Cover saves are not generally allowed. Your quote clearly indicates that "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots. Where this is the case . . . "
Or from a proper English comprehension standpoint, models being partially hidden or obscured by terrain is what where this is the case refers to. The sentence you quoted is a description of Cover, which was already defined in the sentence prior ending with "which is also known as being in cover".
The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots" or you fail at English comprehension.
No, it applies in the case of models being partially hidden or obscured by terrain. Which is modified by, for example, models being in ruins and not needing to be partially hidden or obscured, amongst other rules.
Several rules in fact state they grant a cover save, or that models receive a cover save. You say that they require permission in the close combat rules to take that save, but you've not proven that in the face of that cover save being granted to or received by the model.
You keep shifting the goalposts in any event, and it's tiresomely repetitive. Instead of responding to the entirety of points raised in a post you seem to ignore the ones you have no answer for, or ignore the post entirely, and try to raise another point.
It seems apparent to me you've already made the decision, and almost certainly had the decision made before creating the post. Why bother asking the question if you're going to conveniently ignore valid points raised, or at best cherry pick parts out to try and create an other pointless sub-argument?
Mr. Shine wrote: "Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
On the contrary. Cover saves are not generally allowed. Your quote clearly indicates that "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots. Where this is the case . . . "
Or from a proper English comprehension standpoint, models being partially hidden or obscured by terrain is what where this is the case refers to. The sentence you quoted is a description of Cover, which was already defined in the sentence prior ending with "which is also known as being in cover".
The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots" or you fail at English comprehension.
Lol, who fails at English? You apparently, here's why.
col_impact wrote: I have read the entire quote. It clearly applies in the case of "flying debris and enemy shots". Have you read the entire quote?
Yes, you read it, but you misinterpreted the meaning as that is not how referential statements work. The statement did not ask for flying debris and enemy shots to be the requirement for cover as that was included in a clause describing the benefits of cover. Parse the sentence properly.
[Cover]-subject- <shields>-verb- (troops)-direct object- //{against}-preposition- flying debris and enemy shots//-prepositional phrase-, <enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm.>-dependent clause-
None of that is what "Where this is the case" refers to as it can only refer to the subject Cover. What is Cover exactly? The first sentence tells us.
col_impact wrote: The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots" or you fail at English comprehension.
No. This can be disproven very simply. Take our base paragraph:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
Now let's try juggling it around to read as you say:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Where cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
This doesn't make much sense in the context of the rules and how we determine cover saves, so let's try again:
"Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where you find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
That makes far more sense in terms of the rules and how we ordinarily determine cover saves.
Mr. Shine wrote: "Cover Saves
Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
On the contrary. Cover saves are not generally allowed. Your quote clearly indicates that "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots. Where this is the case . . . "
Or from a proper English comprehension standpoint, models being partially hidden or obscured by terrain is what where this is the case refers to. The sentence you quoted is a description of Cover, which was already defined in the sentence prior ending with "which is also known as being in cover".
The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots" or you fail at English comprehension.
Lol, who fails at English? You apparently, here's why.
col_impact wrote: I have read the entire quote. It clearly applies in the case of "flying debris and enemy shots". Have you read the entire quote?
Yes, you read it, but you misinterpreted the meaning as that is not how referential statements work. The statement did not ask for flying debris and enemy shots to be the requirement for cover as that was included in a clause describing the benefits of cover. Parse the sentence properly.
[Cover]-subject- <shields>-verb- (troops)-direct object- //{against}-preposition- flying debris and enemy shots//-prepositional phrase-, <enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm.>-dependent clause-
None of that is what "Where this is the case" refers to as it can only refer to the subject Cover. What is Cover exactly? The first sentence tells us.
No. This is the case. Obviously.
Spoiler:
Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm.
Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm.
A case cannot refer to an extraneous element of the grammatical English sentence structure, which a prepositional phrase qualifies as. So does the dependent clause. Seriously, you learn in third grade how to parse long sentences into their simple structure. A sentence is not contingent upon dependent clauses and prepositional phrases in conveying rudimentary meaning. In other words, both can be legally removed according to the rules of grammar and leave us with the most simplified version of the core sentence which will still encompass the message. After removing the prepositional phrase and the dependent clause, you are left with the subject, verb, and direct object. When applied to this sentence you get:
"Cover shields troops."
That is the case being referred to, the subject Cover. The first sentence then explains what is considered being in cover.
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover."
Ask your English teacher, you'll learn a bit about grammar.
col_impact wrote: The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots" or you fail at English comprehension.
No. This can be disproven very simply. Take our base paragraph:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
Now let's try juggling it around to read as you say:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Where cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
This doesn't make much sense in the context of the rules and how we determine cover saves, so let's try again:
"Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where you find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover, the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."
That makes far more sense in terms of the rules and how we ordinarily determine cover saves.
I accept your first juggle. That allows cover saves to be taken against shooting attacks which we know is RAI and RAW.
I don't accept your second juggle. That allows cover saves to be taken against close combat attacks which we know is not RAI or RAW.
So quit trying to obfuscate the issue.
We know that the shooting rules grant cover saves to shooting attacks.
We know that the close combat rules do not grant cover saves to close combat attacks.
We know that there are no rules for 'untyped' attacks.
We know that Stomp attacks are neither shooting attacks nor close combat attacks and that the Stomp attack rules do not grant cover saves.
I don't accept your second juggle. That allows cover saves to be taken against close combat attacks which we know is not RAI or RAW.
So quit trying to obfuscate the issue.
He's not. We would be allowed cover saves during close combat. It's the close combat rules in the Assault Phase rules that prohibit cover from being taken against them, not this rule.
Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm.
A case cannot refer to an extraneous element of the grammatical English sentence structure, which a prepositional phrase qualifies as. So does the dependent clause. Seriously, you learn in third grade how to parse long sentences into their simple structure. A sentence is not contingent upon dependent clauses and prepositional phrases in conveying rudimentary meaning. In other words, both can be legally removed according to the rules of grammar and leave us with the most simplified version of the core sentence which will still encompass the message. After removing the prepositional phrase and the dependent clause, you are left with the subject, verb, and direct object. When applied to this sentence you get:
"Cover shields troops."
That is the case being referred to, the subject Cover. The first sentence then explains what is considered being in cover.
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover."
Ask your English teacher, you'll learn a bit about grammar.
The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots." I am an English teacher.
It's hilarious you're accusing me of trying to "obfuscate the issue" when, as pointed out at a level clearly beyond your own understanding by Arkaine, as well as more simply by myself, you clearly quite simply don't understand the structure being used in the rules.
And your retort to us? "No," and, "I don't accept it."
I think we're done here. You've no interest in discussing the matter; you're far more interested in putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring everyone, or worse, shouting them down as you scream, "La la la la la la la."
I think it's about time that we all just agree that the rules here are a little less clear than they could be.
Discuss with your opponent if in doubt about how they would be likely to play it, because it could clearly go either way depending on personal interpretation.
